Gay “Marriage” and Traditional Marriage

This blog comes only at Cort’s invitation; otherwise I’d have stayed out (not from cowardice but because I’m pretty swamped from now until May 1).

My main point is simply this: I can’t agree with those who say that homosexual “marriage” will have no effect upon traditional marriage. No, it won’t make my own marriage any weaker; I yield you that point. The issue here goes a little deeper: if homosexual unions gain the status of a recognized option, traditional marriage is per se undermined because of the implied claim that the moral order is something arbitrary or is even nonexistent, and that marriage and even life itself have only the meaning I choose to give them.

By undermining the idea that a norm exists, homosexual marriage by definition undermines the norm. The suggestion that all forms of human cohabitation are matters of indifference, being arbitrary at their core, must undermine the institution of marriage. Am I expected to believe that feminism, which also claimed traditional marriage to be an arbitrary construct, didn’t undermine marriage?
I think the reason some libertarians hesitate on this issue is because they think that if they admit that gay marriage may have negative social consequences, they’ve therefore made the case for state intervention. But that’s a non sequitur. Christians would be fools to use the state to compensate for the apostasy of the churches. Moreover, a federal marriage amendment is not only poor strategy — it only strengthens the federal government yet again; Thomas Jefferson, who was considered a liberal for favoring castration rather than the death penalty for sodomy, wouldn’t have dreamed of drawing the federal government into an issue like this — but it is also a foolish waste of time. I’m supposed to believe that the same federal government and courts that routinely disregard the Constitution would suddenly become strict constructionists in their interpretations of this proposed amendment?

The Best of Tom Woods