Publius Forum Response

Image from Barbados Photogallery online

Editor's Note: I have recieved a commentary response to my advocation of Gay Marriage from Warner T. Huston, and although my position "may" seem polar opposites we are not. I am a pragmatic, and so is Warner. I respect and advocate the libertarian perspectives and values, as does Warner. The separating difference between us, experience, rationality, and our position of where we fall on emotional baggage with some minor distinctions. So, I have invited Warner to do guest post. You will find us agreeing some of the time, and often disagreeing. However, his insight is welcomed and will be clarifying for me and you, the audience. Warner, has already responded in my comments regarding gay marriage. I am going to repost those comments. Observe and read....

Publius Forum Response


Well, Gregory, since you single me out, I feel I should respond...

(Ediotrs note: when I am being called "Gregory", I know I am about to schooled, conned, or condescended to, and often the tone is a little snooty. No offense-Warner. It has taught me that, me and other person will be on opposite side of my opinion.)

I agree with you that we should not toy with the Constitution lightly. Further more, I share your distaste even in this measure (since I advocated for the amendment banning gay marriage).

However, you offer a simplistic argument about Constitutional purity on that level, I fear. For, if you so steadfastly stand against ever changing the Constitution (something even the Founders did not want to do), then you are tacitly allowing just any outrage to to committed by the opposition. After all, if you never feel it right to resort to an attempt at amendment, the opposing side will act with impunity knowing you will never try to stop them.

Also, you scoff at my usage of "judicial activism" rightly reminding us that there can be both conservative and liberal activist judges. However, that is a meaningless distinction. After all, shouldn't we be fighting BOTH activists who over step their bounds? To listen to you we should IGNORE them just because they happen to come from both sides!

Now, as to your argument that there should be gay "marriage" allowed... well, I disagree with that even more vehemently. If we eliminate the ideal that a marriage is strictly between one man and one woman and allow same sex marriage we will be opening the door to allow any sort of relationship to be considered "marriage". There will be no logical reason to disallow bigamy, polyamory, or just any kind of arrangement that man can think up. After all, we changed it once for the gays, why not everyone else who has a different concept of "marriage".

If you doubt this, just read any of the literature from those who support bigamy/polygamy who openly say that they will run straight for the courts if the idea of gay marriage is legislated for acceptance. Can any other advocacy groups for perversions or societal taboos be far behind? I don't see how an intelligent person wouldn't automatically realize that they wouldn't immediately see all sorts of wackos and nuts hit the courts with their "marriage" schemes.

Last, it will further undermine an already deteriorating nuclear family which will also imperil our society as some European countries are finding out.