LeftOut

by Daryl Moore

NOW THE BACKLASH

We’re Not Asking the Government for a Church Wedding

The gay-rights victory in Lawrence v. Texas is well known by now. Same-sex sex is no longer illegal. Gays and lesbians have celebrated and are looking forward. Advocates are talking about using the Supreme Court’s opinion in Lawrence to advance gay rights: same-sex marriage, adoptions by gays and lesbians, and eliminating the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. All these things seem possible in light of the holding in Lawrence.

Not so fast. In this temporary state of euphoria, many are forgetting what the Lawrence opinion will actually do. It will—at least in the short term—galvanize the far right. A backlash is unavoidable.

Already, the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist (R-Tennessee), has said that in light of Lawrence he supports a constitutional amendment banning marriage between homosexuals. Or, as he stated, “I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between—what traditionally in our Western values has been defined—as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment.”

A lot of people feel the same way Frist does. They feel that marriage is a sacrament, which gays and lesbians should not be able to enter into. The support for this belief is self-evident. It is reflected in Frist’s choice of the term sacrament to define marriage. The word sacrament invokes religion. Indeed, it means a sacred tradition tied to a religion or a church. And therein lies the problem.

We’re not talking about church-sanctioned marriages here. We’re talking about same-sex civil ceremonies recognized by the state. If gays are permitted to have civil ceremonies—and the civil benefits that flow from those ceremonies—churches still will not be forced to conduct or recognize same-sex marriages within the church.

The sacrament that Senator Frist and others are so worried about will still be intact. The holy institution of church marriage will still be denied to same-sex couples. Only heterosexuals—with their 50-percent divorce rate—will be able to enter into that holy sacrament called church marriage.

Anyway, if marriage is so sacred to Frist and others like him who are calling for a constitutional amendment, why don’t they propose a constitutional amendment that will really do something? Why don’t they call for a constitutional amendment that recognizes marriage as a lifetime union between a man and a woman with no exceptions? No divorces. No annulments. And no remarriages. That would do a lot more to shore up the sacrament than a constitutional ban on same-sex unions.

Senator First and other proponents of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages should leave the sacraments to the church and should come up with legitimate, non-religious reasons for amending the Constitution.

Writing from the liberal end of the spectrum, Houston attorney Daryl Moore has a general practice and is board certified in civil and appellate law.

If you have any comments about this article, please email them to letters@outsmartmagazine.com.