National Catholic Register

Opinion

Massachusetts’ Marriage Mess

BY Jim Cosgrove

July 20-26, 2003 Issue | Posted 7/20/03 at 1:00 PM

 

It's hard to write about homosexuality nowadays. If you make a moral argument against homosexuality, you'll sound judgmental to modern ears — and your argument will be mistaken for hatred of homosexuals themselves. On the other hand, those of us who see a moral problem with homosexual conduct have a hard time believing those who defend things like homosexual marriage. We are so used to seeing honesty on this question sacrificed for political correctness that we have a hard time believing homosexuals’ claims about their own relationships.

But now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court is set to weigh in on the debate — in a decision that will likely send the question up the ladder to the U.S. Supreme Court — we have to look at homosexuality and homosexual relationships very openly and honestly.

In such a culture, how do we convince people that homosexual marriage is wrong? For most people, the morality of a thing and its consequences are inextricably linked. They know it's immoral to lie, not because it harms truth, but because it harms liars.

What are the consequences of homosexual “unions”?

One thing has to be admitted at the outset: There are homosexual couples who are committed, caring people who mean well and really do love each other. To dismiss all homosexual couples as pariahs is unhelpful and unfair.

But to be honest, we also need to admit that those sorts of homosexual relationships are rare in the homosexual world.

One of the ironies of our society is that we see what homosexual life is like, right in front of us, and insist on keeping only an ideal image of it in our minds. Take homosexual entertainment. A homosexual channel was started in Canada, but it got extremely low ratings until it added hard-core homosexual pornography. Is that a sign of a healthy community?

The honesty of John McKellar is refreshing. Ahomosexual himself, he is against homosexual marriage. He told Crisis magazine: “Our lifestyle is very much about party, pageant, parade and promiscuity. We want to have our cake and eat it, too. There was an article in the gay press last year titled, ‘How to Stay Married and Still Be a Slut.‘”

It's also ironic that we who have more sociological data about the consequence of domestic violence and divorce than any other society before us are on the verge of allowing homosexual marriage.

Domestic abuse is common among homosexuals. Web sites for homosexuals include a lot of information about the high rates of violence among homosexual lovers. They even offer friendly tips like “What to do if you're being abusive.” Salon magazine reported in 1997 that incidents of “gay-on-gay” violence were far more common than anti-homosexual violence. Lori Girshick's research on lesbian battering has shown how prevalent it is.

And what about sexual abuse of minors? Pedophilia is a different disorder entirely, but it is undeniable that homosexuals see sex with teen boys as a rite of passage. That concept has appeared in the show “Queer as Folk.” One episode featured “the deflowering of a 17-year-old preppie hungry for initiation,” according to one promotion. Canada's homosexual cable-TV channel features a series of movies called “Boy's Life.”

This world is not one in which children thrive.

So how do we stop homosexual marriage in the face of opposition from the court? Exactly as Peter Wolfgang suggests on the opposite page: with elbow grease.

Massachusetts’ decision will have enormous consequences, but it should not prompt defenders of marriage to surrender the battle. In America, there are American ways to stop legal changes. The democratic system doesn't give the final word to any branch of government. If anyone has the final word, it's voters.

Whenever homosexual marriage is put to a vote, it fails. So we should start putting it to a vote. The best way is the Federal Marriage Amendment. Find information on it at: http://www.allianceformarriage.org