On July 9, 2003, Senator Rick Santorum wrote an op-ed piece for USA Today. The piece is full of misrepresentations and downright untruths. Mind you, I'm not accusing Senator Santorum of lying but I am accusing him of willful ignorance. The facts to dispute some of his claims are out there, he just chooses not to avail himself of those facts or simply disregards them. This article will rebut Sentaor Santorum's words and hopefully provide the reader with fresh insight into this crucial issue of equality for all citizens. My rebuttal will appear in a different color so as not to confuse anyone to what are my words and what are Senator Santorum's words.
"The majority of Supreme Court justices may not be willing to admit it, but everyone else seems eager to acknowledge that the greatest near-term consequence of the Lawrence v. Texas anti-sodomy ruling could be the legalization of homosexual marriage."
I fail to see why the majority of the Supreme Court justices would be unwilling to admit this if they in fact believed it was true. It's not like they have to run for re-election or seek public approval. This kind of argument is designed to cast doubt as to the integrity of the justices based on nothing but speculation and it is logically invalid and something of a low blow. What Senator Santorum is saying is that the justices are too cowardly to admit they're aware of the possible ramifications of their actions. I'm quite sure that the justices were well aware of how their ruling might affect the issue of gay marriage and have, in fact, indicated that when the issue comes before them, they will rule in favor of legalizing gay marriage nationwide. This would immediately nullify any state constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be one man and one woman. Of course, that was before Bush got elected to another four years. Depending on who he appoints and who is approved as a justice to the highest court in the land, gay marriage may be further off than I had hoped, especially now that Justice O'Connor is retiring and Justice Rehnquist has passed away.
"Although the court's majority opinion attempts to distance the ruling from the marriage debate, the dissenting justices say, 'Do not believe it.'"
What else would one expect them to say? After all, they disagreed with the ruling and they're known opponents of equal rights for gays based on their religious beliefs. But the last time I checked, one's religion was not a valid basis for a civil law.
"Major Web sites such as America Online's home page, as well as newspapers and TV commentators, have signaled that the decision puts the gay-marriage debate in high gear. The Washington Post's front page trumpeted, 'A debate on marriage, and more, now looms.' And Newsweek's July 7 cover asks: 'Is Gay Marriage Next?'"
What better way to get hits on your website, sell more magazines and get higher ratings than to fan the flames of fear?
"Before, the right to privacy in sexual matters was limited primarily to married couples. Now the court in its sweeping decision expanded constitutional privacy protection to consensual acts of sodomy, striking down anti-sodomy laws in Texas and 12 other states."
This is misleading information at best, blatantly false information at worst. Sodomy, as defined in Texas, includes oral sex as well as anal sex. In fact, it includes almost anything except vaginal penetration by a penis. However, in the state of Texas, the only sodomy that was illegal was that between gays. The state had legalized heterosexual sodomy years before the arrest of Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner. In fact, while consensual sexual acts among gay men were illegal in Texas, bestiality was and still is completely legal in the state of Texas! [Source (Note: You must register at this animal welfare site to access the laws regarding bestiality for each state, but registration is free and very simple.)]
Additionally, from the Lawrence v Texas case before the US Supreme Court, we read, "Early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit non-procreative sexual activity more generally, whether between men and women or men and men. Moreover, early sodomy laws seem not to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private. Instead, sodomy prosecutions often involved predatory acts against those who could not or did not consent: relations between men and minor girls or boys, between adults involving force, between adults implicating disparity in status, or between men and animals."
"The court's majority opinion telegraphed unmistakably its position on the question of homosexual marriage. It listed "personal decisions relating to marriage" among the areas in which homosexuals "may seek autonomy," just as heterosexuals may."
And just what is wrong with that? I am a citizen of the Unitest States and I am entitled to equal treatment under the law. As it stands now, heterosexuals are permitted to marry the person of their choosing. I am not.
"The dissenting justices, including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, noted: 'Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.'"
Of course it will change the structure of constitutional law! So did granting blacks the status of equal human beings. So did granting women the right to vote. There were 12 states that, in the 1940s, still had laws on the books that made it illegal for married women to sign contracts or to own their own property! Getting rid of those laws changed the structure of constitutional law as well. But that structure needed to be changed because a citizen's civil rights were being violated by that existing structure! Such is the case here as well.
Overturning laws banning gay marriage would be no different than the case of Loving v Virginia wherein the Supreme Court overturned the miscegenation laws that were still on the books in 17 states in 1968. Laws that made it a crime for blacks to marry whites. Laws that still had the support of the majority of the country, but laws that we look back on now, less than 40 years later, and say "What were we thinking? How could we have believed that was just or constitutional or even fair?"
"After the ruling, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., expressed concern over the court's encroaching upon Americans' right to protect the family and joined the majority of Americans in backing a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage. I also would support a constitutional amendment to affirm traditional marriage."
This is the part I really, really, really want to stress, so I'm going to make each sentence start on a new line.
The United States of America is not a democracy.
I repeat, the United States of America is NOT a democracy.
We are a constitutional republic.
Here is the difference between the two.
In a democracy, majority always rules.
In a constitutional republic, majority rules only as long as it does not violate the constitutionally guaranteed civil rights of even ONE citizen.
In a democracy, if the majority ruled that slavery was to be the law of the land, slavery would be the law of the land.
In a constitutional republic, if the majority ruled that slavery was to be the law of the land, the courts would throw out that law because it violated the constitutionally guaranteed civil rights of the minority to be enslaved by said law.
Now, please read the following very carefully.
The majority has no right in this country to tell any citizen who they can marry provided that they are seeking to marry someone who can give informed consent to enter into the civil contract of marriage.
There is ample precedent in US law that states that the right to marry is a civil right; an inherent part of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If we allow the majority to dictate civil rights, then we have destroyed the very foundation of America.
It is that simple.
"In fact, I believe that Congress has an obligation to take action to defend the legal status of marriage before the Supreme Court or individual state supreme courts take away the public's ability to act."
The public (ie, the majority) never had the right to determine civil rights. That they claimed such right for themselves (ie, through slavery, denying women equal rights, etc.) does not mean that they ever truly had such a right. And they still do not have that right, no matter how many times people like Rick Santorum or George Bush say they do.
"Every civilization since the beginning of man has recognized the need for marriage."
This is blatantly false information. Marriage as an institution cannot be traced back more than 4350 years. (For a more detailed article on the history of marriage, click here)
"This country and healthy societies around the world give marriage special legal protection for a vital reason — it is the institution that ensures the society's future through the upbringing of children."
This is RRR spin designed to appeal to the emotions of the reader. It is designed to make the reader think that the very existence of the human race was in peril if it were not for marriage and that society has always placed the welfare of our children first and foremost. The unemotional, plain and simple fact is that the institution of marriage, from its inception, was an economic instution concerned with the transference of property rights down the family's male bloodline. Females were sold into marriages and joined the family of their husband. Any children of that marriage were heirs to the father's family's wealth, but not heirs to the mother's family's wealth. Children could be sold into slavery/servitude and women were often forced to have child after child in order to provide more help for the family farm or business. Children's welfare laws are a thing of the recent past— lobbied for NOT by the radical religious right but by liberal democrats.
Besides, if this was the prime reason for marriage, then infertile couples and people past child-bearing age would not be permitted or encouraged to marry.
"Furthermore, it's just common sense that marriage is the union of a man and a woman."
Let me guess why it's common sense: because only a man and a woman can reproduce, right? WRONG!
Gay couples who want to have children and raise families have open to them the same options that heterosexual couples have open to them: adoption (in most states at least), in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination and surrogacy. And of course there's the old standby: unprotected sexual intercourse during a woman's fertile cycle. Of course, that means going outside the marriage for a sexual partner, but there's a rich history of that in heterosexual marriages.
"There is an ocean of empirical data showing that the union between a man and a woman has unique benefits for children and society. Moreover, traditional family breakdown is the single biggest social problem in America today. In study after study, family breakdown is linked to an increase in violent crime, youth crime, teen pregnancy, welfare dependency and child poverty."
This kind of statement is the truth, but not the whole truth. You see, with or without social recognition, gay families already exist. And yes, a marriage between a man and a woman has unique benefits for children and society. But here's the rest of the story: so does a marriage between two men or two women! Studies have shown that the children of gays and lesbians are often more tolerant, more accepting, more understanding of differences and therefore more compassionate and less judgmental. The "traditional family breakdown" Senator Santorum refers to is the breakdown of the two parent home, NOT simply two parent heterosexual homes. Study after study has shown that children of gays are no more likely to be "in trouble" than children of straights. Gay parenting/families/marriages have the backing of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Bar Association and the American Psychological Association. There are no peer reviewed studies that suggest that gay parenting and gay marriages destroy children.
"Marriage has already been weakened. The out-of-wedlock childbirth rate is at a historically high level, while the divorce rate remains unacceptably high."
Yes, and all of this without legalized gay marriage, so don't blame us! Look instead to the people like Newt Gingrich (four wives), Britney Spears (a 55 hour wedding), the television industry for such shows as "Married by America" and "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" and "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance", and all those heterosexual couples who got divorced and all those heterosexual kids who had sex. (Gay teens will never contribute to the out-of-wedlock childbirth rate provided they only engage in "homosexual acts".)
"Legalization of gay marriage would further undermine an institution that is essential to the well-being of children and our society. Do we need to confuse future generations of Americans even more about the role and importance of an institution that is so critical to the stability of our country?"
This is nothing but pure speculation and fear-mongering. First, in countries were gays are permitted to marry or have recognized legal rights as a couple, in most, the "divorce" rate is much lower than it is for heterosexuals. Second, as shown above, there are no studies showing it "confuses" kids. In fact, from my own personal experience, it has worked quite the opposite. By being out and open about our marriage, my wife and I have opened the eyes of quite a few people in our area who now realize that we're no different than they are. People who had preconceived and incorrect ideas about gays and homosexuality now realize the error of their former thinking.
"The last thing we should do is destroy the special legal status of marriage."
Good! Because gays aren't asking you to. Gays are simply asking for the right to do what you do: marry the person you love, raise a loving family, contribute to our society, (oh, damn! I'm revealing the gay agenda!)
"But galvanized by the Supreme Court victory, proponents of removing that status are out in force. Ruth Harlow, lead attorney representing the plaintiffs in the Texas case, said, 'The ruling makes it much harder for society to continue banning gay marriages.'
That is where we are today, thanks to the Texas ruling. But the majority of Americans will have the final say in the battle to preserve the institution of marriage."
See above for comments regarding the right of the majority to deny civil rights.
"I hope elected leaders will rally behind the effort to defend the legal status of marriage from a non-elected group of justices, and I urge you to join those elected leaders in this vital case."
Some final words, if I may.
Gays make up, according to conservative Christian estimates, a mere 1-2% of the population. Also according to conservative Christian propaganda, most gays don't want to get married because they're promiscuous.
So let's do the math here.
Two percent of the population is about five million people.
Let's say that half of them have no desire to marry based on the conservative Christian statement that most of them don't want to marry.
That leaves 2.5 million people who do want to marry.
Let's say of those that are left, only half ever find a partner. And that's a high percentage since it's much harder for gays to find a partner given that there are less eligible partners out there. In a room of 100 eligible singles, statistically, about 50 will be women and 50 will be men will be women. (Actually, it's more like 52 women/48 men, but 50/50 is easier to work with.) Also statistically, 2% are gay, that means one gay man and one lesbian. For a heterosexual walking into that room, there are 49 potential partners. For a homosexual to walk into that room, there are none. The room would have to contain two hundred people and even then the homosexual would have only one potential partner. So a gay's chance of finding a partner is about 1% of a heterosexual's chance of finding a partner. But just for grins and giggles, we'll stick with the fifty percent who want to marry actually do find a partner.
That means 1.25 million gays who find a partner.
Since they would be marrying another member of that group, that means that there are 625,000 married gay couples in the US at any given time. And you expect me to believe that these 625,000 disenfranchised couples have the power to bring down an institution that has stood for 4350 years and has undergone radical transformation already: from women being equal partners to blacks being legally permitted to marry (but only other blacks) to blacks being able to marry whites?!?
Go back in your history books and read the arguments used against giving women the right to vote and blacks equal rights and the right to marry whites. Substitute the word "gay" where you see "woman" or "black" and you have the same tired arguments: It goes against God's design. Once again, though, it must be remembered that the US government cannot, by constitutional law, base any law on a religious principle.
Now, you must also remember, that according to the radical religious right, marriage is a religious institution. (That's not accurate, but let's assume that it is.) With or without legal recognition, many gays call their relationships marriages because their churches recognize them as marriages. This is the same argument that the radical religious right uses for not allowing gays to marry. Whether or not the state recognizes it as a marriage, the church recognizes it as a marriage and, according to the conservative Christian argument that marriage is a religious institution, these gay couples have the right to call their relationships marriages. Now, Mr. Santorum's church does not have to recognize it as a marriage— but just as Mr. Santorum's church is not bound by the doctrine of a church that does recognize gay marriage, neither is said church bound by the doctrine of Mr. Santorum's church. That's what the first amendment is for. And that first amendment is what Mr. Santorum is seeking to undercut with his support of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
I can't help but recall the immoral words of Pastor Martin Niemöller:
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up. |
We could rework this to something like,
In the United States, they first took away the rights of the gays,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't gay.
Then they took away the rights of women to control their bodies,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a woman.
Then they took away the rights of...
Will you be a member of the minority they come for next?
