The word “ban” is negative.
Like “taboo,” the term offends modern sensibilities trained to be ever more accepting of any envelope-pushing behavior.
That’s why the media describe California’s Prop. 8 constitutional marriage law as a “ban,” not the codification of something positive and timeless. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has been misreported for years as the “federal ban on gay marriage.” So when “smarter than God” federal Judge Joseph Tauro in Massachusetts dispatched DOMA on July 9, the media thundered as one: “Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban.”
Similarly, in California, federal Judge Vaughn Walker was widely reported to have struck down the state’s “ban on gay marriage” in his August 4 ruling. The New York Times put it this way: “Court Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Ban in California.” Actually, Walker took his activist ax to the meaning of marriage itself, and the meaning of representative democracy in a free republic.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, not known for its sagacity, still should declare this mess a monumental abuse of discretion that shocks even its stunted conscience.
The liberal media are crowing that the death knell of marriage as we know it is a sweet, sweet song. The Washington Post called the Prop. 8 campaign “mean-spirited,” and said “It is hard to quarrel with the conclusions of the federal judge" that, as the Post phrases it, traditional marriage serves no “legitimate public policy purpose.”
Really? That would be news to millions of voters and legislators in 45 states that have worked hard to strengthen their marriage laws. Or to the 342 congressmen and 85 senators, plus President Clinton, who enacted the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. They all did this out of hatred, according to Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who writes triumphantly: “Bigotry has suffered a grievous blow.”
Well, something has suffered a grievous blow. That would be truth itself. Pretending that a brideless or groomless union is a marriage is a fantasy cooked up in Hell. The devil is laughing, but not at marriage defenders, who still irk him. He’s convulsing with mirth at the lengths to which the intelligentsia will go to deny the obvious.
The media have turned the meaning of marriage on its head. Calling the law a “ban” says its only purpose is to discriminate against homosexuals. By this reasoning, any law or policy that defines something is a “ban.”
But a license to practice law or medicine is not a “ban” on those without law or medical degrees. It is recognition of the qualifications. A state’s requirements for a driver’s license are not a “ban” on the under-aged or the untrained. A college degree is not a “ban” on anyone who did not matriculate.
Marriage as the union of a man and a woman predates all other human institutions. It was not created to annoy homosexuals. Marriage laws exclude all but one man and one unrelated woman. Yet, I have not seen any media report the demise of the “incest ban,” or the “polygamy ban” or the “bestiality ban.” Just because homosexual activists have led the assault is not an excuse to pretend that marriage has only the purpose of excluding them.
Language is important. It’s why abortion proponents use “choice” instead of the name of the odious practice, and why “homosexual” morphed into “gay.” It’s why “smut” has become the friendlier-sounding “porn” or “erotica.” These terms mislead people away from considering the behavior and deliver them safely into the abstract. That’s where volitional, immoral practices can be falsely equated with God-given, unalienable rights protected in the U.S. Constitution.
The next time you see someone cite the “ban on gay marriage,” it’s the work of radical cultural activists – or someone dancing to their tune.