Democratic presidential contender John Kerry told the Washington Post: "I have a belief that marriage is for the purpose of procreation and it's between men and women."
Reality check: While Kerry has two daughters from a first marriage that ended in divorce, and his current wife, Teresa Heinz, has children from her prior marriage (she was widowed), Kerry and Heinz have failed to live up to their sacred obligation to procreate children together and thus validate what they refer to shame-facedly as their "marriage."
The Escalating Debate.
As we await a ruling from Massachusetts on whether the state must grant marriage benefits to same-sex couples (the anti-gay Family Research Council is already freaking out), it's clear that marriage will be the defining issue of the gay rights struggle for the years ahead. Given that most of the leading gay political groups have made lobbying for local, statewide, and federal anti-discrimination and hate crimes laws their highest priority while downplaying the marriage issue (with the noted exception of Lambda Legal Defense), this has required a fairly significant change of focus.
Gay groups were caught off-guard by the Defense of Marriage Act that Bill Clinton signed (allegedly after leading activists told him that marriage wasn't that big a deal). Can they manage to put together a credible effort to block the proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, which requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate before being sent to the states? Let's hope so.
Virginia Postrel, a libertarian writer, offers her take on the same-sex marriage debate. She asks, "Do we think it's a terrible thing for the law to break up loving couples? Or do we think that gay couples aren't real couples (or, perhaps, real people)?" Someone should ask John Kerry.
Several commentaries of late have been referencing David Boaz's argument to "privatize" marriage, published in Slate back in 1997 and well worth revisiting.
Syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock confronts Justice Antonin Scalia head on, making the "presumption of liberty" case that many libertarian-minded constitutional scholars share: that is, "The Constitution is no ceiling of liberties. It is a floor of freedoms." Murdock writes:
Social conservatives often demand to know where the Constitution enshrines freedoms they oppose. "
What if the elected city council of West Hollywood (a potentially majority-gay jurisdiction) prohibited heterosexual acts within city limits? Would Scalia -- support such a law provided a legislative majority approved and the mayor signed it? "
The rights to sodomize, fornicate and use sex toys can be assumed under the Ninth Amendment. Citizens need not scour the Constitution for a vibrator clause. Government must demonstrate why such a liberty should be curbed, namely to shield the lives, competing liberties or property of other citizens.
Clear enough?
Recent Postings