Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, June 30, 2008
Peter J. Wirs :: Townhall.com Columnist
Same-Sex What?
by Peter J. Wirs
Forward Print Share Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will Sarah Palin make a run at the GOP Nomination in 2012?


Maybe I took too long a nap. But did America’s conservatives suddenly approve of same-sex marriage? Or are conservatives too busy beating on up on John McCain (you know, the same John McCain who has vigorously fought pork barrel earmarks for years on end).
 
Conservatives, including my brethren Townhall columnists, bemoan the Supreme Court’s recent habeas decision in Boumediene v. Bush, a technically correct decision as it pertains to separation of powers. Habeas corpus, as old as the Magna Carta, challenges the legality of detention. Arguing Boumediene impacts military decision-making is merely a strawman. If detention of enemy war combatants is legal, why be fearful of a habeas challenge? To the contrary, conservatives are always circumspect of unchallenged executive authority.
 
Yet, I hear no outcry over the California Supreme Court’s May 15, 2008 ruling legitimizing "same-sex" marriages. The In re Marriage Cases decision properly asserted that "the right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people." The Supreme Court’s holding is that homosexual men and lesbians are commonly subject to biased treatment that has no basis upon their ability to be a contributing member of society. Therefore, sexual orientation, like race, religion, or gender, is a suspect class for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. This suspect classification requires that the highest level of scrutiny be applied to laws potentially infringing upon the rights of these persons. Accordingly, the statutory denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.
 
Excuse me, how does a discussion about apples have anything to do with oranges? If, arguendo, gays and lesbians are subject to discrimination, there is more than adequate legal protection to prevent such discrimination, primarily through ADA, the Americans with Disability Act. (Yes, homosexuality is a disability, but this is a subject for another column). But the In re Marriage Cases court then makes a leap of faith, bypassing all rules of logic, through what lawyers call a covert base switch. Gays and lesbians are not suffering discrimination by being denied marriage, because it is an incontrovertible physical fact that gays and lesbians cannot actually marry, that is to undertake the fundamental purpose of the sexual union.
 
Marriage is one of mankind's oldest (if not the oldest) social institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are sanctioned by public recognition. While some courts, such as New York, treat marriage as a mere contract relationship, society accurately recognizes marriage as a change in the personal status of the man and woman so united. Marriage was created by society to assure social and economic stability, and the formation of a family unit resulting from procreation from the anthropological recognition that two parents are essential for nurturing of children. In exchange for such stability, society bestows marriage as the means to legitimize sexual relations essential to have children. In almost every western society under Judea-Christian influence, marriage typically requires consummation by sexual intercourse, and non-consummation (that is, failure or refusal to engage in sex) usually constitutes grounds for annulment. In sum, the purpose of marriage is to facilitate procreation, to assure that society continues, that there is a succeeding generation. Since when can two gay men procreate? How does one lesbian impregnate another lesbian? It is simply, completely and categorically impossible.
 
The politically correct powers-that-be liticshould have been put on notice, in that an adjective is supposed to modify a noun or pronoun, giving more information about to what the noun or pronoun refers. It cannot repudiate the noun which it is to modify. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, a non sequitur, because it does not follow marriage can be of two persons of the same sex.
Share:
Forward Print Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Peter J. Wirs is currently the Chairman & Co-Trustee of the Republican Leadership Trust as well as the incoming President of the National Conference of Public Officials. The views and opinions found in this article represent the author's views and opinions and not those of any institution or organization with which the author is affiliated.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(188 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 1
Date: Jul 5, 2008 - 6:46 PM EST
Wirs, the cruel pig
du: So true! Some people only know how to hate and spread their hatred, bigotry and stupidity for all the world to see! So incredibly sad and pathetic the kind of example people like this set for our children! One would think that everyone would want children to grow up being respectful of other's differences and to be open-minded. Yet apparently people like this want our children to HATE! How could anyone be so cruel as to teach something like this to our children?!?

Yet at the same time many children are rejecting these ideals of hatred and bigotry and the children of today will be the LEADERS of tomorrow and with it a new generation of acceptance and embracing those who are different! We are all human beings and worthy of finding our true love and being loved in return!

Within 10-20 years from now most people will look back on this fight and will NOT be able to understand what the problem was with allowing full MARRIAGE EQUALITY for all!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 2
Date: Jul 4, 2008 - 6:30 PM EST
du

As much as you and I most assuredly disagree on virtually every other issue, I commend you for accurately identifying Wirs as a pig.

He is that, and more.

We conservatives call them RINO's (Republicans In Name Only), but the in-the-bone feeling of profound contempt you have for P.J. Waterhead is identical to my own (and for some of the same reasons, actually).

Weasels like this loppy headed moron are the face of the rebranded, Rockefeller-wing GOP.

That's why so many of us realcons are leaving. I've already left. McCain has turned me in to a libertarian.

Bob Barr '08


Cheers!

Norman
Flag as Offensive
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
 *
State:
 *
Zip:
 *
Phone:
       
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.