Category: gay “rights”/”marriage”


I’m praying that 2013 won’t be for marriage and family what 1973 was for babies and parents: the start of legally-protected destruction on a mass scale. I am not optimistic, but there is always hope, even in America.

Under our present laws, you are free to have sex with any consenting adult you wish. You are free to give him or her access to your heart or your house, your children or your legal rights. What you are _not_ free to do under our Constitution is force Catholics, or anyone else who does not share your moral values, under penalty of law to call what you have chosen “good” or “marriage,” or — even less — to force them under legal penalties to “marry” you or accommodate your choices in their business decisions (from wedding cakes to hotel rentals to insurance benefits). This is how freedom works in most parts of America, for the time being.

Of course, under our Constitution, I am free to say that thousands of years of societal misery have shown that sex and childbearing outside of a marriage ordered to protect spouses and their children is unhealthy and even dangerous to your body, mind, heart, and soul, and even more so to those of your children. I am free to conclude therefore that choosing to have sex and children outside of marriage is a colossally bad idea, one that I disapprove of and will not allow to be modeled to my children. You are free to disagree, even if it offends me. I am free to pray for all of those caught in unhealthy and dangerous lifestyles, that they will find their way to health and happiness, with whatever help I can offer. You are free to do what you will, even if it makes you miserable. That is how freedom works here and how it should work.

May it remain so.

This post was originally my post on Facebook during the arguments before the Supreme Court. Below are some excerpts of my responses to others’ negative — and, dare I say, stereotypical and Web-ubiquitous — comments in reaction to my post, including one from a childhood friend who is in a gay relationship with children:

Not surprisingly, I am also wholeheartedly against throwing marriages away; I believe that marriage is indissoluble and that abuse is one of the few reasons for legitimate separation (not divorce) between properly-married spouses. As for your second comment, race is wildly different from sexual choice. There is nothing biologically or morally different about people of different races, and so there is no impediment to marriage, but there are obvious differences between men and women that make true same-sex marriage impossible. (Of course, the race issue is a very emotional red herring in this debate. Unsurprisingly, I personally know no traditional marriage advocates who would have any problem with interracial marriage, and I know of many who are in fact in such marriages themselves.)

Regarding Prop 8, which is much closer to home, I agree that it is complex and unlikely to yield a clear resolution. Abortion law as we know it now (virtually no restrictions at any time) is the result of at least three Supreme Court cases (Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey), so I have good reason to believe that even if this case doesn’t work the destruction to traditional marriage I dread, a decision or two down the line will finish the job.

[Friend], though I clearly wouldn’t make the same choices you’ve made (or vice versa, I’m sure!) and we always had our disagreements, I respect your right to live as you choose, and wish you and your loved ones well. I also support gay people having the same individual legal rights/protections as anyone else — just not special protections that infringe on my rights, such as to fine/imprison me if I peacefully speak against the gay lifestyle, or my friend if he refuses to accommodate it in his business, or my priest if he refuses to perform a wedding or arrange an adoption. We’ve seen in other places that this is where gay rights are headed. I’d like to live and let live; is this possible? If you lived next door to me, I’d chat with you or your partner at the mailbox and bring a plate of marzipan at Christmas. I have closeted and out gay family members — my gay cousin and her partner caught the bouquet at my very Catholic wedding! — and we are all friendly. They don’t force their sexuality on me, nor do I force mine on them; that’s private, just like it is with my straight friends and family. I know many family and friends disapprove of my large/homeschool family lifestyle and would never choose it, and of course I wish that weren’t so, but they have those rights; all I ask is that my family’s religious rights be equally respected and that our choices not be a source of enmity. Have a good evening.

This guest post is provided courtesy of my husband Peter, a social studies/math teacher at a charter high school in Central California. He is in his 18th year of teaching in both public and private schools in Texas, Arizona, and California; he is also in his third official year of homeschooling. He is a lifelong Catholic, and a talented mineral collector and family historian/genealogist.

The analysts at Fox News seem inclined to believe, based on the questions asked by the SCOTUS justices today, that the Court will issue a narrow ruling on Proposition 8, but these are the same analysts who thought that the Court would overturn the individual health insurance mandate last summer based on the tenor of the questions that the justices asked at that time. I don’t believe we can tell much at all from today’s arguments. I would suggest, however, that last June’s ruling on the health insurance mandate might be a clue here. In that case, the Court upheld the mandate, according to the majority opinion, on the basis of the federal government’s power to tax. However, I tend to agree with those who say that this was a pretext, a line of reasoning that did not really reflect what Justice Roberts and perhaps some others really were thinking in ruling the way that they did. My suspicion is that they didn’t want to be responsible for overturning what appeared to be the will of the majority on such a controversial issue, much as a referee doesn’t really wish to be the person who decides the outcome of a game, preferring to let the players do so instead. As the Court saw it, the voters had expressed their will by electing Obama and a Democratic Congress into office, and they could, if they chose, overturn the mandate by electing the GOP into office in 2012. I suspect that at least some of the key justices will see this issue in the same way. Rather than act as the “deciders” on such a controversial issue, they may likely choose to take the same route – letting the voters decide – as they did on the mandate issue. This would mean, of course, keeping the gay marriage issue as one that is determined on a state-by-state basis. This, of course, would be a significant defeat for proponents of legalized gay marriage (not necessarily a permanent one), but its opponents wouldn’t be able to claim all that much victory in that situation either.

%d bloggers like this: