The Courts vs. Marriage
In 2005, Connecticut enacted “civil unions,” designed to be marriage in everything but name for same-sex couples. We are not sure what good purpose is served by such laws. The reason governments recognize marriage in the first place is to promote the well-being of children in the setting most conducive to their flourishing. There may or may not be great value in other types of relationships: those between friends, or heterosexual lovers, or relatives who take care of each other. But why should the government grant recognition to one subset of those non-marital relationships — those between people of the same sex who are sexually involved? What goal does such recognition serve? Other, that is, than the legitimization of homosexual conduct?
But Connecticut, at least, decided the matter democratically. Those people who objected could try to persuade their fellow citizens to repeal the law.
Now Connecticut’s supreme court has decided that marriage in all but name is not good enough, and imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Like other courts, the Connecticut court treated the legislature’s attempt to meet gay activists halfway as a reason to throw out the compromise and hand the activists a victory. If the legislature was willing to recognize same-sex unions as though they were marriages, the court reasoned, why not call them marriages too? Opponents of same-sex “marriage” should be warned: Thanks to the courts, compromise is now folly.
The courts have so far imposed same-sex marriage on Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California. The next step will be to force other states to recognize same-sex unions solemnized in those jurisdictions. The Defense of Marriage Act protects states that wish to maintain their marriage laws as they are. Senator Obama wants to repeal that act, however, and the Democratic platform comes out for repeal — a position to the left of any previous Democratic presidential candidate. When Obama says that he opposes same-sex marriage, his words mean nothing.
A pity, then, that Senator McCain has not raised the issue. In the vice-presidential debate, Governor Palin even suggested that the tickets agree on same-sex marriage. We are on track to have same-sex marriage from sea to shining sea, without the people ever authorizing the idea. The public will be consulted as little as possible, and only after the fact.
That should make my pro-non-traditional-marriage friends happy. The tactics of the left: Using the courts to shove special-rights status of victim groups down the throats (I almost wrote "up the backsides") of Regular Americans.