Roman Around

If not for radical judges who circumvent the will of the people by legislating from the bench, how many states would have legalized same-sex marriage today? (There are currently five). Without these fanatical, agenda-driven, left-wing policy pimps sifting through the penumbras of existing law to magically discover formerly obscured legal epiphanies, would there be any state where same-sex marriage was lawful? In thirty-one prior instances (out of thirty-one), when the redefinition of marriage was brought before the people, the measure has flat-out failed. This has been the case not only in red states, but in the blue ones as well.

Americans simply do not want marriage redefined. And as mystifying as it may be to proponents of same-sex marriage, that does not mean Americans hate gays.

Yet, in what was supposed to be the post-everything era in America, the plague of intolerance is apparently still pervasive, so the story goes.

The proof?

Yesterday afternoon, another shade of east-coast blue was added to the rainbow of intolerance. This time, it was the State of New York.

Indeed, it was not a direct vote of the people – like last year’s Proposition 8 in California, for instance, or last month’s ballot initiative in Maine - but for all intents and purposes, the number of states that have said “no” to redefining marriage is now at thirty-two.

By a vote of 38-24 – a far higher margin than most would have anticipated – the New York State Senate said “no” to a bill that would have made same-sex marriage legal. Eight Democrats were among those who voted to maintain the traditional definition of the institution.

The bill had already passed the State Assembly. This was would have been the final step before the governor’s signature made it law.

Jeremy Peters of the New York Times writes:

The vote means that the bill, pushed by Gov. David A. Paterson, is effectively dead for the year and dashes the optimism of gay rights advocates, who have had setbacks recently in several key states.

…

Mr. Paterson made an unusual trip to the Senate floor minutes after the last vote was cast, saying, “These victories come and so do the losses, but you keep on trying.”

…

The debate was as personal as any to take place in the Senate chamber in years. Senators spoke of their experiences as Jews and Baptists, as blacks and women. They spoke of spending long nights contemplating their votes and the deceased gay friends and relatives who inspired their decision.

Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson, a Democrat who represents parts of the Bronx and Westchester County, spoke publicly for the first time about her gay brother, who was shunned by her family and moved to France.

To being with, I do sympathize with Senator Hassell-Thompson. I mean that sincerely. But matters of public policy can not be formulated based on emotion. Sound decisions, in any walk of life, can not be scored through emotional filters. The ordeals of her gay brother and family, while heartbreaking and tragic on a micro level, is irrelevant to the macro issue. The adoption of same-sex marriage would have had no bearing on whether or not the senator’s brother was shunned by his family. As callous as that may sound to those whose value sets are defined by their emotions, it isn’t meant to be. What proponents of same-sex marriage fail to realize is that keeping the definition of marriage as it has always been isn’t rooted in hatred of homosexuals, as many gay activists incorrectly charge.

As I have stated repeatedly on this blog, I don’t hate gays.

I don’t hate my siblings either, despite my vehement objections to sibling marriage.

The redefining of marriage to include same-sex couples is a foreign concept in the cumulative of human history. This is not to say that same-sex relationships have been alien to humanity – far from it – but there is no thinker, philosopher, theorist, religious leader, sage, academic, poet or guru who has ever been a proponent of redefining what has been the foundational institution of humankind for millennia.

Not one.

Are we to believe that the gay activists of the last couple of decades posses more wisdom than the whole of humanity that preceded them?

Arrogance, I believe is the word.

As I wrote a year ago in my piece, “I Don’t Hate Gays, Okay? Part Two“:

Is sensitivity to be measured by how much one concedes to the requests and desires of given population groups? Is it not possible to be sensitive and sincerely empathetic to the desires of homosexuals on a personal level while wanting to maintain the traditional definition of marriage on a macro level? These are not mutually exclusive positions.

My purpose here is not to once again make the case against same-sex marriage – or even make the case for traditional marriage. Rather, my contention is that matters of public policy, such as the redefining of marriage, are issues that are to be decided by the people – not frustrated judges who are well aware that their radical agendas cannot pass muster with the American electorate, nor by elected representatives who tug on emotional heartstrings in order to win.

Instead of gays demanding that heterosexuals accept their lifestyle choices – while simultaneously admonishing them for butting into their private lives – how about taking a page from the suffrage movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries and try to change minds through good old fashioned grass roots activism? The arduous, decades-long struggle that led to the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920 was far more than just a string of angry protest marches. The idea of giving women the right to vote had to be sold.

Instead of lambasting traditionalists and labeling them as “haters” and “bigots,” how about explaining in reasoned tones why the definition of marriage should be changed? How about clarifying in rational terms why the value system that would permit same-sex marriage is better for America than one that recognizes marriage as a union between one man-one woman? How about defending the notion that same-sex marriage is okay, but sibling marriage is not? Or polygamy? Indeed, rallies are fine, but how about getting out there and engaging with the American public through debates, town hall meetings and other interactive forums? How about facing skeptics and detractors in the arena of ideas and present the best case for the legalization of same-sex marriage? Go out and sell it.

That’s how things get done in this country.

There’s no guarantee, of course, that same-sex marriage can be sold. Think of the movement to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. It didn’t fail for lack of activism or trying.

And if the people of my state find themselves persuaded after years of effective “gay rights” campaigning to vote in favor of same-sex marriage, what then can I say about its legitimacy? Despite my vehement opposition to it, I would grudgingly have to cling to my credibility and consistency by conceding that “the people have spoken.” Indeed, I wouldn’t like it, but no one ever guaranteed me complete satisfaction in this life.

If I am so inclined, there are always other states.