Yesterday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a ban on marriage between gays is unconstitutional. I’d have written about it earlier, but I was in the studio all day with minimal access to news (though I did see some very cool stuff). I’ve always considered Massachusetts to be rather weak when it came to the interpretation of the Constitution; just try to get a concealed carry permit and you’ll see how ate-up they are on Amendment Two. However, I do agree with this decision. The state needs to get out of the business of telling people who should marry whom (within reason, of course; that is, minors shouldn’t be allowed to marry, nor should close relations, no matter what gender they are). It’s nobody’s business but the consenting adults involved. Of all the horrible, stupid crap that goes on on a daily basis, it’s mind-boggling that time needs to be spent on what’s really a non-issue for everyone except those of us who feel they have a moral or ethical obligation to legislate what people do in their bedrooms, married or not. What’s damaging to the sanctity of marriage is not the gender of the participants, but rather their compatibility. The commonality of divorce is far more worrisome to me than Bobby having two daddies.
As for the children, I do feel that it’s probably better to have parents of different genders. Despite militant feminism’s most enduring efforts to convince us otherwise, men and women are wired somewhat differently, and in this case, diversity of outlook is a good thing. Nevertheless, this is also pretty much a non-issue as far as I’m concerned; there’re no compelling statistics that I could find that suggest children coming from same-sex marriages are any more or less well-adjusted than any other kind.
John Derbyshire, whose opinions I generally find somewhat congruent with my own, unfortunately has a big problem with gay marriage, which drives him to ask:
1. If “gay marriage” is legalized, will prisoners be able to marry their cell mates? If not, why not?
2. In many jurisdictions, a marriage can be annulled if it has not been consummated. What, exactly, constitutes “consummation” of a gay marriage?
To paraphrase gay conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, for Derb and many others, homosexuality is what gays do, it’s not what they are. It’s an important leap of logic to get from “do” to “are.” This does not mean, however, that I care to know who does what to whom because of what they are. Like I’ve said, it’s not my business. You want to have a gay pride hayride? Go for it. The caveat is, don’t expect me to want to watch or support your right to pantomime sex acts in the street any more than I would expect you to listen if I were indiscreet enough to publicly describe what I like to do in the bedroom and who I do it with. If that’s unreasonable, please let me know.
Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today’s decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.
What can you do? Get off it, George; you’ve got other stuff to deal with.
in other gay news, New York City is the home of Harvey Milk High School, the first publicly-funded high school in the country that accepts only gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered teens. The school was founded in part to protect these types of children from the bullying that heterosexual students inflict. At least, I’m assuming that this is the case; ultimately, algebra is algebra no matter what your sexual orientation may be. The idea of segregating students according to this criterion is horrible enough, but to do so on the taxpayers’ dime is truly appalling. Joel Mowbray reports on a growing crime problem in the school itself:
Last week, police arrested five cross-dressing Harvey Milk students who posed as female hookers and robbed men who approached them for sex. According to news reports, the teens dressed up as female hookers, and when would-be johns approached to solicit sex, other students posing as cops would start ?arresting? the men.
After allegedly taking wallets, cash, ATM and credit cards?and apparently brandishing a gun in at least one case?the students would say something like, ?You?re not such a bad guy,? and ?release? the men. But before the men were set free, several of them divulged their PIN numbers, allowing the Harvey Milk students to withdraw as much as $1200 from each person?s account.
Well, you might say, these kids just happened to be from Harvey Milk High. Okay, what about this:
Last month, three Harvey Milk students were charged with gang assault after a group of teens stabbed a man in the back with a screwdriver in the parking lot of a Starbucks coffee shop across the street from the school. Several of the alleged criminals? classmate?s told the media that the victim had made homophobic remarks, but police told the New York Daily News, ?This was not motivated by him seeking to harass them about being gay.?
The police official also told the Daily News, ?The Harvey Milk students were the aggressors.?
And police officials are holding out the possibility of more arrests to come, saying, ?The case is absolutely still under investigation.?
When thugs used edged weapons on the street, the overwhelming majority of them use screwdrivers. It’s easily concealed, creates horrific wounds, and is available at your local Home Depot for $1.99. At least these gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered teens are working within that demographic.
Mowbray ends with something I couldn’t have said better myself:
Protecting kids who are getting picked on?or worse?is actually a noble goal. But why resort to the bigot?s tool of segregation? Why not just teach gay teens how to beat the snot out of bullies? Wouldn?t that be better preparation for life in general? What?s a gay man or woman to do, for example, if a thug attacks? Run to a segregated area? Of course not. But self-defense training would seem essential in such a situation.