By STEPHEN M. KRASON
One of the major things the Democrats in Washington have pushed through before losing control of the House of Representatives with the new year to further the left’s assault on sexual morality, marriage, and the family is the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act from the mid-1990s and the enactment of the so-called Respect for Marriage Act.
The Democrats were firmly for the previous law when it was enacted, but now they have become the thoroughgoing party of sexual revolution and the vanguard for the homosexualist movement. Of course, the acceptance of same-sex so-called “marriage” is nothing short of a repudiation of what man has understood since the beginning of time.
In a certain sense, it was a culmination of the modern devaluing of the institution of marriage that began with the contraception and divorce revolutions beginning in the early twentieth century, but this is much more radical by changing what marriage actually means.
The question arises now about what the defenders of true marriage should do about the passage of what should be called the Utter Disrespect for Marriage Act. Seeking a repeal in the next Congress will be futile — the Democrats will still hold the Senate and the presidency. The Republicans’ narrow House majority will not help, even more when one considers that thirty-nine House Republicans joined all the Democrats in supporting the Act (as did twelve Republicans in the Senate).
The first thing the defenders of true marriage must be aware of is that the left will not be satisfied with the passage of this law. As it has become increasingly authoritarian, the left will move in different ways to squash opposition to same-sex “marriage” and the homosexualist agenda generally. We have already seen leftist state governments go after wedding planners, web designers, bakers, florists and the like who for reasons of religious and moral belief will not provide services for same-sex “weddings.” It is likely that there will be a renewed push to shut such businesses down and pressure the owners with state and federal civil rights actions.
One can even expect a push to revoke the tax exemptions of churches that will not perform same-sex “wedding” ceremonies. After all, the First Amendment doesn’t mean a whole lot to activists whose main aim is to remake the political society according to their ideological vision. Fully in line with the range of modern ideological movements of the past two centuries, at bottom line they will brook no compromise or serious dissent from what they seek.
So what should the defenders of true marriage do? First, pertaining to citizens generally, they should not retreat into silence or take the attitude that this is now done and let’s just move on. They should learn about the serious implications of the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” and speak up to defend true marriage. They shouldn’t take the attitude that we have to be polite and not speak up about it in the company of associates, neighbors, and the like who may have a different view. They should certainly vigorously oppose any effort by their representatives to change laws to treat same-sex couplings as equal to true marriage as far as treatment from government and government benefits are concerned.
They should keep writing their letters to the editor opposing same-sex “marriage” and the homosexualist agenda generally — in fact, they should be more vigorous than ever in doing so. The conservative legal defense organizations should act aggressively to oppose any efforts by the left and homosexualist organizations to twist the civil rights and tax laws to go after dissenting churches. There is some commentary that the new Respect for Marriage Act will even open the door to governmental actions against individuals who oppose or speak against same-sex “marriage.” The legal defense organizations have to be active throughout the country, not just to seek to establish precedential cases but to defend every person who is facing pressure from government and homosexualist organizations. The courts are the place that the opponents of the current leftist intolerance increasingly must turn to.
For those with a long memory, it may seem odd that the courts are the place to look to when in the past they did so many things over the decades to advance the objectives of the left. Times change, however, and even when the courts concur with the left it must be realized that most judges take seriously their role of upholding citizen rights, especially such basic ones as those protected by the First Amendment. We should always appreciate the principle of separation of powers as a means of stopping authoritarian government.
On these issues as on so many others we can see the wisdom of our Founding Fathers who, by the way, would be shocked to hear of such notions as a right to same-sex “marriage” or sodomy. Even if Supreme Court majorities in recent years established these “rights,” we shouldn’t think that even the leftist justices are willing to sacrifice the First Amendment. Finally, regarding Congress’ enactment of the Respect for Marriage Act, the state governments opposing this should also go into the courts to challenge it on federalism grounds. Marriage law has always been a state prerogative and now Congress has to some extent usurped it.
Even though the Supreme Court through much of the twentieth century permitted the expansion of national government power, in recent decades it has “rediscovered” federalism and there is no reason to believe — even if they hold same-sex “marriage” to be a right — that they would not apply that here.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress