GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE

Advocates for same-sex marriage have frequently argued that restricting marriage to man-woman couples violates the American Constitution.

For example, the largest gay-rights group in the country, the Human Rights Campaign, argues on its Web site that “the framers of our Constitution established – and we as a people have repeatedly reaffirmed – the principle of separation of church and state. That principle applies no less to the marriage issue than it does to any other.”

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom told the San Francisco Chronicle that the federal Constitution authorized him to “marry” thousands of same-sex couples beginning Valentine’s Day 2004: “I hope every elected official in the United States takes a look at that Constitution that they swore to uphold…. there’s nothing in the Constitution that allows me to discriminate against people.”

There is even some evidence that the Supreme Court is sympathetic to a federal right to same-sex marriage. In the celebrated Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case in 2003, Judge Anthony Kennedy wrote for the 6-3 majority: “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education…. Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

It so happens many people like me who oppose same-sex marriage see nothing in the U.S. Constitution that invalidates the man-woman definition of marriage. Obviously much of the LGBT community disagrees. When there’s a society-wide dispute over the meaning of the Constitution, the proper arbiter is the nine experts in robes whose very job is to determine precisely what the federal Constitution does and does not mean.

But “marriage equality” advocates don’t want that. They’re afraid their ideas about the supposed federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage won’t be convincing enough. So they have done everything possible to stop well-qualified jurists like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Roberts from ever being able to referee this dispute. They’ve chosen instead to go the state-by-state route, so that when they finally impose their definition of marriage on the whole nation, we’ll be so used to it we’ll barely notice.

When Christopher Hammer and Arthur Smelt, a gay couple from Orange County, California, filed a federal lawsuit to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and declare a federal constitutional right to marry, several LGBT groups including Equality California and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund asked the liberal Ninth Circuit to throw out the gay couple’s case.

Jennifer C. Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, was candid about her group’s reasoning: “Our carefully considered view is that it’s important to be taking steps in the jurisdictions where we can succeed and have a series of successes … before calling the ultimate question for the entire country.”

Who elected Jennifer Pizer queen lesbian? The LGBT movement is profoundly undemocratic. Many groups focused on equality like NOW and the NAACP elect their leaders. But overwhelmingly gay and lesbian groups appoint their leaders, and those appointments generally go to two types of people: major donors, and “affirmative action” slots for categories like transgender people and people of color. When I belonged to the Human Rights Campaign Fund in the early 1990s, every member did get to vote for the board of directors - but there was usually exactly one candidate for each board position! If Pizer’s group wants to pursue state cases, that’s fine. But blocking the federal claim of a loving gay couple is unacceptable.

Hammer has his own theory why organizations supposedly there to help him would stab him in the back instead: “If we win, that sinks all their fundraising - and that destroys all their cases because we’d all be equal in the law across the United States…. they don’t want us to win.”

The couple’s attorney, Richard C. Gilbert, said “Our case can’t hurt state cases because state cases are decided under state constitutions…. What other group has said don’t fight, we’ll lose? Even if you lose you can make progress with an issue. Would Lambda Legal had said to Dred Scott, ‘Mr. Scott, you’re a slave, so don’t sue because you’re going to lose?’”

Rather than fight state-by-state battles over marriage for the next 20 years, we should get a definitive ruling on the subject from the Supreme Court that we’ll all be bound to accept - or to amend the Constitution if we don’t like it. I know the court may not rule my way, but I’m still willing to give it a shot. Why won’t the “marriage equality” crowd?