Why Heterosexual Marriage Won on Tuesday

November 4 , 2004

On Tuesday, eleven states entertained constitutional bans on gay marriage and in some cases civil unions as well.  It seems that most Americans instinctively know something about constitutional law even if they never smelled a law book.  This is because constitutional law, in its essence, is based in natural values not necessarily stated in the legal word.

Most Americans know there is something very wrong about “gay" or "same sex" marriage.   Very few can really say why this is so (in legal terms).  They just know it is an animal that should not be let in the house.

Let's dissect this weird beast and see what is inside.

“Gay” and “same sex” marriage relate to two vastly different concepts.  In the media, "Gay rights" is the buzz word.  That's what everybody thinks the issue is all about.   But in the murky halls of feminism and the courts, the descriptor is always "same sex" marriage. 

Why would feminists carefully use different lingo in these different situations?

“Gay marriage” refers to gays or lesbians who want to marry a gay or lesbian friend.  “Same sex” marriage refers to the vastly larger idea that any two human beings should be able to set up a legal union bearing all the protections of marriage, regardless of the sexual orientation of the individuals. 

"Gay marriage" is a limited construct.  Courts cannot consider this limited issue, because sexual choices are not obvious or immutable like race or sex is.  If you line up 100 people against a wall, anybody can tell you the sex and race of each person.  Good luck trying to figure out which two are gay or lesbian. 

And Courts will never require your recorder of deeds and your local pastor to make two women strip down and prove they are lesbians to get married.  So courts could not order states to make individuals prove they are lesbian or gay to get married.

You can also forget all the nonsense about "being born gay".   Folks are born with all sorts of genetic proclivities such as killing and alcoholism, but we don't build constitutional protections for those behaviors.  In fact, we lock them up and take away their driver's licenses. 

John Kerry lost the presidential race because he is not a conservative trapped in the body of a liberal.  This issue does not cut both ways.  By the same token, being “born gay” is truly a losing argument in court. 

"Same sex" marriage is the larger construct surreptitiously sought by feminists in the courts and legislatures.  This is what they are pushing for in the courts.  Contrary to popular belief, the Goodridge decision in Massuchusetts has little to do with gay rights.   The Massachusetts Supreme Court actually ordered the state to marry any two human beings who waltz through the door.  Sexual orientation is completely irrelevant.

So now that you know that "same sex marriage" is the name of the beast, here is how it barks: Lesbians and gays are the raucous innocent victims trotted out in public to call you an intolerant homophobic bigot to terrorize you into participating in the feminists' vastly larger goal of "same sex marriage".

Now we know that voters were really considering “same sex marriage”.   Forget the smokescreen of gay rights.  But never forget the National Organization of Women, who pushed the nation into considering an earthshaking issue that many didn’t know they were even considering.

The goal of the National Organization of Women is to create the right for any two women to “marry” each other and have children with their boy-toys; leaving men no status or role in society, while forcing all the economic responsibilities of marriage on men.   We are talking predatory motherhood on steroids, and on a massive scale.

But would women do this?  History says they would.  Half the husbands in America have already thrown out of the families in divorce, and it isn't getting any better.  The cycle of poverty and illegitimacy is largely driven by women who prefer a steady government paycheck to a boyfriend who can’t earn as much.   This culture is largely shaped by women’s choices.

N.O.W began this drive to take over the American family in the 1980’s.  They realized that if any two Murphy Browns could marry each other, women would have both of their incomes, and additionally get multiple sets of child support orders, welfare entitlements, and the blessings of society.  This is not to mention the titillating possibilities for endless sexual gratification and procreational entrapment with every hunk imaginable that our Murphy Browns could have, without stigma or care attached.

Given these advantages, it isn’t hard to figure out what all those college co-eds guided by campus women’s activists are going to do.  Many women would become “roomies for life”.   Boy-toys would have only one choice: pay child support or go to jail.

Feminism has always been a movement seeking total socio-sexual control over men.   Early feminists said so all the way back in the 1880’s in a broadside distributed in Evansville, Indiana: "No longer will man say that in the hand of woman rests the necessity of rocking a cradle only. She has within her hand the power to rule the world."  This is still the oft-repeated goal of feminist leaders operating under hard core umbrellas such as N.O.W., NARAL, university women’s studies, law, and psychology programs, international feminist NGO’s, and women’s abuse centers. 

There are many soft-core umbrellas as well.  Their names sound egalitarian, but they are usually controlled by leaders and cronies of the hard-core feminist political movement, such as the A.P.A division 51, the A.B.A., your state bar association, your local newspapers, media outlets, universities, and much of the Democrat Party. Their job is to manipulate everybody else into believing they are reasonable, egalitarian-minded feminists, gay rights activists, lawyers, judges, writers, psychologists, educators, and politicians.

The feminist machine tried to sell the public the idea that same sex marriage has something to do with increasing equality.  But it did not fool those who were lucky enough to have the opportunity to express this simple, natural understanding of constitutional law:

“Heterosexual marriage is exclusively constitutional because it erases all physical, social, economic, and culturally imposed disparities that exist between men and women, thus situating men and women similarly under the law.”

Thirteen states have taken a strong position protecting gender equality.  Where are the rest?