California’s Supreme Court ruled last week that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry because to deny them a status afforded heterosexuals was deemed discriminatory.
“Reserving the historic designation of ‘marriage’ exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples … equal dignity and respect,” according to Chief Justice Ronald George.
But in fact, permitting individuals of the same sex to describe their relationships as marriage gives them a right not extended to heterosexuals, for whom “marriage” is very narrowly defined.
Although a man and a woman may legally wed, the law does not consider the marriage valid unless it is consummated. A minister may have declared the couple husband and wife, the state may have issued them a license; they may share a name, a house, a bank account, and wear each other’s rings.
They may have engaged in various intimacies only Bill Clinton would not describe as sex. But unless the relationship includes the one act defining marital union, the marriage can be annulled because it is deemed to have never existed.
Why, then, should there even be a question of whether same-sex couples can marry? Applying existing law, the question is moot; homosexual marriage is physically impossible.
Only by exempting same-sex couples from the legal standard applied to opposite-sex couples can the former be considered married. So now we have a double standard: Marriage for heterosexuals remains narrowly defined, while homosexuals may define it however they choose.
That hardly represents equality. Moreover, demanding special concessions is a foolish strategy for a group trying to gain social acceptance. Granted, homosexuals have had stunning success reshaping society’s opinion of them in recent decades.
After President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, his widow — clearly subscribing to the then-prevailing theory of homosexuality — assured Americans that her fatherless son was being provided a masculine influence by his Uncle Bobby.
Today, if a former first lady fretted publicly about her son “growing up to be a hairdresser,” she could escape the noose only by entering rehab and undergoing re-education. But in the mid-1960s, Jacqueline Kennedy merely expressed the sentiment held by most Americans.
While most people would no longer voice such a position openly, their public postures do not necessarily reflect their private views. Consider how celebrities such as Tom Cruise lend their support to the push for gay rights, but if someone accuses them of being homosexual, they sue for defamation of character. Hypocrisy, anyone?
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the majority of Americans would rather not confront the matter at all; they don’t care what adult acquaintances do in the privacy of their homes.
But being tolerant of a different lifestyle is not the same thing as being forced to grant a stamp of approval. By demanding that same-sex partnerships be afforded the label of marriage, homosexuals require Americans to take sides — and, whenever they do, gay loses.
Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, but 26 states specifically outlawed it. Reacting to the decision of the California court, even more states are likely to enact laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying.
The ruling also is likely to motivate social conservatives who do not count John McCain as one of their own and who may have been quite willing to stay away from the polls in November. Gay activists exultant over the California ruling should be preparing for the inevitable backlash.
It has been 36 years since the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual dropped homosexuality from its listing of psychological disorders. But it also has been 35 years since the courts legalized abortion, and that debate is still ongoing and contentious. Because, in the minds of many Americans, both behaviors betray moral absolutes, abortion and same-sex marriage always will meet resistance.
So regarding marriage, why wouldn’t it be a reasonable solution simply to apply the same rules to all couples — to say that unless a relationship can be consummated by a specific act, it cannot qualify as marriage?
True, that would not allow for the preferences of all individuals; but it would shift the blame away from conservatives and Christians and place it where it belongs: on nature.
Examiner columnist Melanie Scarborough lives in Alexandria.
