Gays canƒ_™t love, shouldnƒ_™t get married

Dmitry Chernikov

In one of its previous editorials, the Summer Kent Stater argued in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States.

By wanting the rights to marry to be extended to them, gays want an official sanction approving of their relationships. There are several points to be made against this.

First, why would anyone want the approval of the most criminal organization in the world, the State? The nation-state is the biggest murderer (war), the biggest thief and extortionist (taxes, borrowing and inflation), the biggest counterfeiter (the fiat currency standard), the biggest kidnapper (the draft and child “protection”) of all. Both conservatives, who want the state to be guardian of morality, and the homosexuals, who want its stamp of approval, do not grasp that approval from this gang of foolish and wicked men is not worth striving for and is, in fact, a badge of dishonor.

As if a legal sanction and even lifelong commitment between two homosexuals could make what is sinful be righteous. According to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” So homosexual acts are contrary to the proper purpose of one’s sexuality and are therefore contrary to the natural law. Homosexuals are called to chastity through self-mastery.

By supporting the Leviathan State by demanding from it special privileges such as non-discrimination, homosexuals become open to a reversal of fortune. Such reversals have happened in the past, and they will happen again. A simple change in public opinion would be enough to get our omnipotent government to crack down on gays.

As economist Thomas Sowell argues, marriage is not an extension of rights but a restriction of them.

“People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

“Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.”

In other words, as Michael Kinsley puts it, “So, in the United States we are about to find ourselves in a strange situation where the principal demand of a liberation movement is to be included in the red tape of a government bureaucracy.”

Finally, let us point out the problem of definition. Gay marriage is hardly similar to marriage in the traditional sense. It has neither the procreative component, nor even the unitive component, for there can be no genuine love and friendship, the kind that can exist between a husband and wife, in a homosexual relationship.

Thus, to blithely call the arrangement in question between two men or two women “marriage” is to equivocate. Therefore there is no “policy of oppression” against gays.

Dmitry Chernikov is a graduate student in philosophy and a guest columnist for the Summer Kent Stater. Contact him at [email protected].