Related articles and links |  1 of 2

THE NEWSPAPER PHOTO showed two men kissing as their friends joyously threw rice. Unbelievably, it was their wedding day—and their "marriage" was, thanks to a Canadian court, as legal as any heterosexual marriage.

If we don't act fast, we may soon see many more "weddings" like these—not only in Canada, but also in the United States.

Consider: On June 11, a Canadian appeals court ruled unconstitutional Canada's ban on homosexual marriage. Within hours, the first same-sex Canadian couple rushed into matrimony. Three weeks later, in Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court declared (6-3) that sodomy is protected behavior under the Constitution's so-called "right to privacy" provision.

Gays hailed the decision as the prelude to homosexual "marriage" in America—and they're right. It's the prelude, as well, to legally sanctioned polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality. As Justice Antonin Scalia angrily roared in dissent, the decision "effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation."

This is precisely the point Senator Rick Santorum and Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor (nominated for the Circuit Court) were vilified for making. Radical gays and the media falsely claimed he equated homosexual behavior with bestiality and incest. Nonsense. Santorum was simply stating the obvious: If the Court sanctioned sodomy on privacy grounds, it would then have no rationale for outlawing other private, consensual sexual acts.

How, for example, can we continue to uphold laws against polygamy? After all, the polygamist and his wives engage in private, consensual sex. So does a father who wants to sleep with his consenting teenage daughter—or son. Ditto the man who engages in bestiality, for, according to ethicist Peter Singer, animals can give nonverbal consent.

This is the dirty little secret behind Lawrence v. Texas—which is why the gay lobby so viciously attacks anyone who exposes it. Americans may tolerate sodomy—but most draw the line at incest, polygamy, and bestiality.

These rulings will do more than pave the way to a sexual free-for-all. They'll also codify cultural confusion about the very nature of marriage. If consensual sex of any kind is now a constitutionally protected civil right, as Lawrence holds, the Equal Protection Clause should give gay couples the same right to formalize their relationships as heterosexual couples enjoy. But as both Catholic and Protestant philosophers have noted, "gay marriage" is the ultimate oxymoron.

In his book The Clash of Orthodoxies, Princeton legal philosopher Robert George writes that matrimonial law reflects both the biblical and natural law understandings that marriage is a two-in-one flesh communion of persons, consummated by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they result in children. They unite the spouses as a single procreative unit—an organic unity achieved even by infertile couples.

By contrast, George writes, homosexual acts have no relationship to procreation and can't unite persons organically. Thus, these acts cannot be marital—which means homosexual relationships cannot be marriages.

And as philosopher J. Budziszewski writes in his book What We Can't Not Know (Spence, 2003), "To call procreation the purpose of marriage is not arbitrary; alone among all forms of human union, the union of the sexes produces children … A legislature [or a court] can no more turn sodomitical unions into marriages than it can turn dogs into cats; it can only unravel the institution of marriage by sowing confusion."

next page... |  1 of 2

October 2003, Vol. 47, No. 10