After the defeat of a proposed constitutional amendment to save traditional marriage in the US, Congressman Jim DeMint remarked: "All of us, as Americans, believe that people have a right to live the way they want. But no person, no judge, has a right to redefine our basic institutions."

That sounds reasonable enough. But it's wrong.

We do not, "as Americans," necessarily believe that everyone has the right "to live the way they want." There are limits. Some people want to make their living by robbing banks. But robbing banks is illegal, and no responsible legislator suggests a change in that law.

Senator Sam Brownback, a principal sponsor of the failed amendment, offered a similar thought: "Most Americans believe homosexuals have a right to live as they choose."

But some homosexuals "choose" to live as couples, and argue that the government should give their unions all the benefits of legal marriage. And Senator Brownback's proposal would have made that impossible.

Why does Brownback oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage? Rather than confronting that question directly, the Kansas lawmaker claimed that the American people "do not believe a small group of activists or a tiny judicial elite have a right to redefine marriage and impose a radical social experiment on our entire society."

But wait. What if a large group of activists-- perhaps even a legislative majority-- sought to redefine marriage? Would it be OK then?

Brownback, DeMint, and most of the other Republican sponsors of the proposed constitutional amendment did their utmost to avoid criticizing homosexual behavior. They confined their arguments to a critique of judicial activism, making the case that such a crucial public-policy issue should not be settled by a few judges. In choosing that rhetorical approach, they opted for an argument that is correct, but not persuasive.

The Republican approach confused two different issues, and gave priority to the less important one. Judicial activism is certainly a legitimate concern. But the assault on marriage is a matter of much greater urgency. By keeping a tight focus on the misdeeds of a few liberal judges, supporters of the amendment conveyed the impression that they are interested solely in procedures, rather than in the substance of the issue.

With few exceptions, the lawmakers who spoke out in support of the amendment did not explain why America should preserve the institution of marriage as it is traditionally understood. Thus they passed up their opportunity to make a more persuasive case against the gay-rights movement.

In the long run, you see, the case for legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" will rise and fall along with the popularity of the gay-rights movement. If we accept the legitimacy of homosexual behavior-- if we fail to uphold the all-important moral and metaphysical distinction between sacramental marriage and homosexual liaison-- then gradually the gay-rights campaign will gain ground, and eventually the drive for legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" will win public acceptance.

At some point in the future, then, it might not be merely a handful of judges who demand legal recognition of homosexual partnerships. It might be a broad popular movement; it might become a majority. And unless there is a compelling argument against recognition of same-sex marriages at that point, there isn't a compelling argument against it today.

In an op-ed column appearing in today's New York Times, Thomas Frank assails Senate conservatives for suggesting that the real problem here is a the scheming of a few liberal judges to rewrite the law. Although Frank is thoroughly partisan, and his argument is mean-spirited, unfortunately he has a point.

It's true that judges shouldn't rewrite the law. But there's another, larger issue involved in the definition of marriage. When the issue is God's law, no one has the authority to rewrite it. Even if the people's duly elected representatives votes to accept same-sex marriage, it is still an offense against natural law.

Judicial activism is certainly a problem that should be addressed. But the more immediate issue is the definition of marriage. We won't win that argument on procedural grounds. If we can't convince the American people that same-sex marriage is wrong, we can't expect the public to be too upset when a few judges say it's right.

# posted by Squach : 10:24 AM   |