By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
March 24, 2004
Rep. Barney Frank, an elected representative of the State of Massachusetts, which declared a “constitutional right” for same-sex “marriage”, challenged supporters of a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as it is defined in marriage licenses, dictionaries and encyclopedias worldwide. Speaking to the Senate Judiciary Committee Frank said, “If people decide to allow it, you who do the constitutional amendment will cancel the rights of the people of Massachusetts and I do not think that is an appropriate response to make here," he said. "And certainly not to the threat that millions of people are threatening to commit love."
Every dictionary and encyclopedia in my library, and there are a number of them published from 1848 to the present, defines marriage as “the act of legally uniting a man and woman in wedlock.” What is called “same sex marriage” or “anal sex” today is called sodomy in my dictionaries and is defined as “unnatural” sex or “anal copulation with a human or an animal.” , So just where in the world did the “right” Rep. Frank claims exist come from for two men, two women, or perhaps a man and a dog at some future time in some future court, to claim the “right” for society’s approval of their unnatural sexual behavior?
Not even unlimited heterosexual marriage is considered an inalienable right. Societies have always defined who may marry and at what age they may marry, etc. In 1878 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 “'Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.' “ Every since that date it has been a federal crime for any person to have more than one spouse at a time. Love has nothing whatever to do with the subject matter. Religion has nothing whatever to do with the subject matter. The U.S. Supreme Court declared the religious practice of polygamy a criminal offense because “Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of [98 U.S. 145, 166] the people, to a greater or less extent, rests.”
At issue in the case was whether or not Congress could pass a law prohibiting plural marriage as practiced in Utah at the time “in conformity with what the accused, George Reynolds believed at the time to be a religious duty.” Reynolds attorney argued, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned.”
The court stated that “An exceptional colony of polygamists under exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it.” However, it also noted that “polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, unless restricted.” Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled, “it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.”
In other words, while the Court conceded that the Mormons with their plural marriage might very well be successful with their strong family ties and high moral code, the rank and file of society in polygamous cultures tend to deteriorate into despotism.
Since 1879 it has been a federal crime for any person to have more than one spouse at a time. Love has nothing whatever to do with the subject matter. The First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion has nothing whatever to do with the subject matter. The issue involved is the “social life” and the “social condition of the people.” According to the 1879 Supreme Court the overall effect of polygamy practiced in most societies tended to fetter the people in “stationary despotism.”
If that were considered true in 1879, it certainly should be a factor in 2004. What WOULD be the reaction of those who support same-sex marriage should a group of Muslims with several wives or polygamists such as the David Koresh, leader of the Branch Davidians of Waco, Texas a decade ago, demand an equal right to marry according to their religion and their love? What WOULD the “social condition of the people” be like in a nation that adopts the notion of legalizing and socially approving of sodomy with same-sex marriage?
On September 4, 2003, Constitutional Law Professor Richard G. Wilkins of the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University, addressed this exact issue in testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary:
“The strength of America’s economy and its society depend upon the strength of its marriages and families. Those who complain that focusing on preserving and promoting these vital institutions is somehow less important or less urgent than dealing with more immediate and supposedly more important issues like terrorism or the economy are ignoring the lessons history has taught across cultures and over the millennia. The truth is that our ability to deal with these or any problems is directly correlated to the strength and resilience of our society and our people. There is no issue more important than preserving and promoting such fundamental social institutions as marriage.”
The “social condition of the people” among those who practice sodomy includes a shortened life-span, increased incidences of violent death and suicides and an increased rejection of normal heterosexual marriage, according to statistics gathers in countries approving of same-sex marriage. The median age at death of homosexuals who die of AIDS is 39. The median age at death of homosexual men who die of causes other than AIDS is 42.
Frankly, it puzzles me that liberals believe the social consequences of smoking, which shortens a person’s life by about 8 years is reason enough to enact laws and levy taxes to discourage it, yet APPROVE of same-sex “marriages” or “unions” which shortens a person’s life span by over 20 to 40 years.
To Comment: Mary Mostert