The Debate Continues...

Warner Todd Huston responds to one more reply by G.K.Stewart...

Greg (or how some-ever you wish to be addressed),

I'd like to take the time to address a few of your points to me that you sent via email and below is that full text for full disclosure...

I wish could agree with you. They made, "the inclusive they" about inter racial marriage, that the foundational institution of marriage, Loving vs State of Virginia. Love is Love. I find it funny that those who wish to promote stability are actually willing to "destabilize" another. My question to you how does two lesbian, or two gay men getting married affect you and your wife. Does it make your relationship in less real? Are you against civil union as well? If not, then is your obejction because of the term "marriage" first. Remember marriage was formed to "set alliances," not bcoze of any romantic notions, or religious prescription. As for case, Polygamy, and Polyandry, as long as "consenting" adults agree and that age (18-21) then so be it. As for the extremes in the groups, all religions, or group have their fanatics, and US Supreme has stated the citizens have to provide reasonable restrictions. Oh, by the way---those who wish descend, if you, off species, are already going to do with or without societys' permission. Not to say, we legalizing beastiality (sp). No marriage of "homosexuals" will not bring down civilization, it will enhance it by providing some stability to ostracized community. And, that is the true fear, if homosexuals are no longer "defined" as "abnormal" that they live their lives like everyone else then this association is one more tick against their religion. Think "noble savage" Native Americans were seen as barbaric until they were "observed" as having "the same measure of qualities as Christians" but simply need to be converted with the "rest of the story."--the believe of Christ. Again, their are some fanatic. The other fear is that the some gays may want to adopt, then convert the children, puhlease. This is a oversimplified rationale. The fear here is ignorance. Setting as aside for a moment the ridiculous notion of it, no one actively chooses their sexuality. When did u choose to be heterosexual? Name the exact time and day that you decided to be straight? Hmm, "my name is Warner and as of 5:15pm., January 1983 I declare my sexuality to be straight." No one choses their sexuality. No more than their race. When it is far easier to conform. My point being is this, is that the adopted children will reflect the cultural and observable tendency whether is 2% or 10% of the populataion. Again, the fear is tolerance and normality. Sweeping hasty generalizations only serves those who wish to "suspend their belief" of the observable. And, leaves no room to judge indiviudally. Case by case. No liberty for all consenting adults is a must.The pursuit of it is a must and emboldening of it is necessary for democracy survival.

Now to my response:

Your first point was the assumption that the proscription against interracial marriage in days past is the same as today's proscription against gay marriage. I disagree vehemently. Your catch phrase was "love is love". But "love" is not the main issue. Societal stability is.

There was nothing but simple prejudice against interracial marriage and the SCOTUS realized that a man and a woman marrying served to undergird society in child bearing and raising regardless what the races of the man and woman might be.

Further, our laws are based on Western standards, the English Common Law and, ultimately, Christian religious sensibility. In 1878 the SCOTUS also observed that when they said in Reynolds V. The USA (A case against a Mormon polygamist):

Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society.

I realize this is not directed at gay marriage, but the principle holds exactly the same.

Now, you asked how a pair of gays being married affects me and my wife. At this direct time it does not as our relationship is already formed and on solid ground. It is future relationships that will be altered, not mine. As we erode and make less, and less "serious" the ideas of marriage, fewer take the institution seriously. Fewer get married and the nuclear family is undermined leaving the stability of our children's homes destroyed. Marriage has always been for societal reasons, to focus on family, and, yes, "love". But not "love" alone.

Various places in the Netherlands have already noticed that marriage is nearly non-existent and children do not have stable homes as a result in those countries. It is affecting them horribly.

Back to polygamy, you said the following:

As for case, Polygamy, and Polyandry, as long as "consenting" adults agree and that age (18-21) then so be it.

Man! You CAN'T be serious? You would accept any manner of taboo as long as it is between "consenting adults"? Apparently you are unaware of the great harm that comes among the many wives of a bigamist?! These arrangements are usually religious in nature and almost always oppressive of the freedom and liberty of the woman. As the SCOTUS decision delineates democracy demands that liberty be given equal protection and polygamy and polyandry violate this precept.

Next you accept the notion that homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder presumably because of our enlightened opinions today. However, it is mere political machinations that changed the notion of homosexuality being "normal" not clinical research. I firmly believe it was wrong to change the status. Less than 6% of the US can be considered fully homosexual, yet more than 20% are said to have mental problems undiagnosed. It is rather amusing to me that 20% can be assumed "sick" in this country but a condition that garners less than 6% can still be thought of as "normal"!

Further more, it is quite possible to "chose" to engage in homosexual activities and to fool yourself into believing you might be homosexual. Many have done so. Many realize they are not. It is not entirely axiomatic that one who has some tendency is "born that way" and cannot change. In fact, nearly everyone wonders about it at one time or another... or even attempts to engage in it.

In any case, I support the decision of the 1873 SCOTUS and find that the particular case against the Mormon can be logically extended to homosexual marriage.

Lastly, I'd like to address this quote from you:

The other fear is that the some gays may want to adopt, then convert the children, puhlease. This is a oversimplified rationale. The fear here is ignorance.

Ever heard of NAMBLA? Their entire goal is to molest children and no gay activist will speak out against them because they don't want to be seen as not supporting a gay group.

As to children, there is quite a lot of research that proves that the best, most optimal situation for a child is to have a Mother and a Father. Children of such couples succeed far better than children of other types of "families". So, I ask you; WHY would you agree to place any amount of our children in situations we know is less optimal?

Worse, it is also a statistical fact that gay men, for instance, live shorter lives and get sexually transmitted disease far more often. Why put children in such situations? (Not that heterosexual marriages and relationships are perfect, mind you. but they are far superior situations in which to raise our children)

The whole issue of gay marriage is based on a selfish desire to force society and religious communities to accept something that is unnatural and dangerous to society. ANd I feel you are falling victim to kitchy ideas of being cool and "progressive" as opposed to considering the actual effects the destruction of marriage would have on our country.

Now, I cite the relevant sections of the SCOTUS decision I was mentioning below for your information...

REYNOLDS v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878 - October Term)
98 U.S. 145

Section 5-
......

Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society. After the establishment of the ecclesiastical [98 U.S. 145, 165]   courts, and until the time of James I., it was punished through the instrumentality of those tribunals, not merely because ecclesiastical rights had been violated, but because upon the separation of the ecclesiastical courts from the civil the ecclesiastical were supposed to be the most appropriate for the trial of matrimonial causes and offences against the rights of marriage, just as they were for testamentary causes and the settlement of the estates of deceased persons.

By the statute of 1 James I. (c. 11), the offence, if committed in England or Wales, was made punishable in the civil courts, and the penalty was death. As this statute was limited in its operation to England and Wales, it was at a very early period re-enacted, generally with some modifications, in all the colonies. In connection with the case we are now considering, it is a significant fact that on the 8th of December, 1788, after the passage of the act establishing religious freedom, and after the convention of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States the declaration in a bill of rights that 'all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience,' the legislature of that State substantially enacted the statute of James I., death penalty included, because, as recited in the preamble, 'it hath been doubted whether bigamy or poligamy be punishable by the laws of this Commonwealth.' 12 Hening's Stat. 691. From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of [98 U.S. 145, 166]   the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is equally striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.

In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167]   To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does. Here the accused knew he had been once married, and that his first wife was living. He also knew that his second marriage was forbidden by law. When, therefore, he married the second time, he is presumed to have intended to break the law. And the breaking of the law is the crime. Every act necessary to constitute the crime was knowingly done, and the crime was therefore knowingly committed. Ignorance of a fact may sometimes be taken as evidence of a want of criminal intent, but not ignorance of the law. The only defence of the accused in this case is his belief that the law ought not to have been enacted. It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion: it was still belief, and belief only.


6. As to that part of the charge which directed the attention of the jury to the consequences of polygamy.

The passage complained of is as follows: 'I think it not improper, in the discharge of your duties in this case, that you should consider what are to be the consequences to the innocent victims of this delusion. As this contest goes on, they multiply, [98 U.S. 145, 168]   and there are pure-minded women and there are innocent children,-innocent in a sense even beyond the degree of the innocence of childhood itself. These are to be the sufferers; and as jurors fail to do their duty, and as these cases come up in the Territory of Utah, just so do these victims multiply and spread themselves over the land.'

While every appeal by the court to the passions or the prejudices of a jury should be promptly rebuked, and while it is the imperative duty of a reviewing court to take care that wrong is not done in this way, we see no just cause for complaint in this case. Congress, in 1862 (12 Stat. 501), saw fit to make bigamy a crime in the Territories. This was done because of the evil consequences that were supposed to flow from plural marriages. All the court did was to call the attention of the jury to the peculiar character of the crime for which the accused was on trial, and to remind them of the duty they had to perform. There was no appeal to the passions, no instigation of prejudice. Upon the showing made by the accused himself, he was guilty of a violation of the law under which he had been indicted: and the effort of the court seems to have been not to withdraw the minds of the jury from the issue to be tried, but to bring them to it; not to make them partial, but to keep them impartial.