|
 tanley
Kurtz in "A
Cultural Antidote: Why we need a Federal Marriage Amendment"
insists that "reasonable people can disagree on the question
of homosexual marriage" and that "reasonable people will
differ on the subject of homosexuality."
Maybe not.
Imagine Mr. Kurtz strolling by Moses and dropping those lines as
Moses is about to present the Ten Commandments. Of course, not everyone
might consider Moses a particularly "reasonable" guy.
But there is
nothing "reasonable" about two men or two women having
sex. There is something deeply wrong. The practice should be discouraged
and resisted, not accommodated. One can love friends and relatives
who have a homosexual problem without caving in to the politically
correct campaign for mandated acceptance.
Lending legitimacy
to any sex outside marriage is not a "reasonable" position
but an abandonment of moral principle. It is a disservice to call
the principled stand against any government promotion of homosexuality
an "extreme" position, as Mr. Kurtz did in his follow-up
column ("The
Right Balance"). In fact, it is a sad day when National
Review and National Review Online run columns that assail a
respected institution like the Family
Research Council for holding "extreme and untenable positions"
and comparing them to the extremism of the radical Left.
It is also
a disservice to those trapped in homosexuality, who suffer shortened
lives (see the International Journal of Epidemiology) as
well as astronomically heightened risk for body damage, disease,
and domestic violence. Seeking "a rough sort of compromise"
with homosexual activists, as Mr. Kurtz advocates, is not only impossible
but is not "conservative," unless one defines conservatism
as preserving incremental leftist victories.
Given what
we have learned about the dangers of sex outside marriage, why aren't
we talking about how to roll back the depredations of the sexual
revolution instead of how to institutionalize them? Why aren't we
treating homosexuality as preventable and treatable, which it surely
is?
As for the
Federal Marriage Amendment, it may be well intentioned, but it allows
for legislatures to enact the rest of the homosexual agenda right
up to civil unions and other forms of counterfeit marriage. As written,
the amendment will give politicians cover while they promote homosexuality
by other means. Just ask the front-line pro-family activists who
are fighting domestic-partner legislation in California, Maine,
and elsewhere. Marriage is too important to be defended in name
only.
This is why
CWA's Culture and Family Institute and other pro-family groups cannot
support the amendment as written, nor the "compromise"
positions articulated by Mr. Kurtz.
|
