It's Time For A Constitutional Ban On Gay Marriage

July 2, 2003

The Supreme Court has been quite busy lately.   First the ruling on affirmative action, followed closely by their striking down of the sodomy laws in Texas.   I must admit that, although I do not condone homosexual behavior, the sodomy laws, which regulate what goes on behind closed doors in our bedrooms, have a chilling effect on our privacy.   I certainly understand and recognize the moral decay of our society.   I would agree that something has to be done to stop the downward slide.   However, policing the privacy of bedrooms is not the way to go about it.

There are those on both sides who believe the sodomy ruling will lead to the sanctioning of homosexual marriage by the high court.   That seems to be quite a leap.   As far as I know, it’s currently within the law for a man to have multiple and simultaneous partners in the sack.   That doesn’t mean that polygamy is legal.  

But I do understand that the Supreme Court can be less than perfect.   I’ve griped for decades that they sometimes base their rulings on legal precedence rather than the Constitution, as is their charge.   To head off any misunderstanding regarding marriage, I believe Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had the right idea when he advocated a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

“That’s discriminatory!” some of you may be shouting.   After all, why shouldn’t two men be able to legally marry?   Okay.   Let me ask you this.   Why shouldn’t a brother and a sister be able to marry?   When I put that question to some of my gay friends, they answer, “Well, that’s just sick.”   I think you’ll find many heterosexuals responding the same way when you ask them about gay marriage.   Their next response is, “Siblings may produce deformed babies.”   Well, what if the woman is barren?

You see, once you’ve answered all their questions, it simply boils down to why we have marriage in the first place.   In my upcoming book, Right From The Heart: The ABC’s of Reality in America , I explore this issue in Chapter F: Families are the basic building blocks of society .   Society sanctions marriage between a man and a woman because it is most beneficial to society as a whole.   Promoting polygamy is not in the best interest of society because it’s not the best environment to raise children.   Homosexuality doesn’t promote children at all.   When children are involved, study after study has concluded that raising children in a same-sex household is less than ideal.

The societal sanctioning of marriage is not designed to appease every small segment that wants marital recognition.   It is reserved for what is best for society as a whole.   Not to mention the vast abuse that would surely follow the official sanctioning of same-sex marriage.   Business partners may find it financially advantageous to “marry” just to take advantage of health benefits or tax loopholes.

The bottom line is this: We must draw the line on marriage somewhere.   Keeping it as it is makes much more sense than opening up Pandora’s box and setting off down the road of who knows what.   Once we’ve crossed that threshold, it’ll be mighty difficult to deny any combination of “loving couple.”

The constitutional amendment process is a long one.   Two-thirds of Congress has to approve it then three-fourths of the states must ratify it.   As much of a pain as that is, it’s hard to know where the Supreme Court will be in the future.   Perhaps it’s time to hedge our bets and spell it out for them once and for all.