Other topics:

There are many good arguments to maintain marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It can be shown that the optimum home for children is one where there is a father and a mother. It can also be shown that, even in societies where homosexuality was widely practised, marriage was still between one man and one woman (the Greeks are the best example of this.) So why the big hue and cry for gay marriage? Homosexual activists will tell you that it is a matter of right for them to enjoy the legal benefits of the married relationship. In saying this, they are unwittingly saying more about themselves than their desires for the formalisation (and ultimately the acceptance) of their way of life.

It used to be that sexual activity and the resultant procreation of children were only acceptable within the confines of marriage. All of this, however, went out the window in the 1960's. In those days, we were told that marriage was a sexist, repressive institution engaged in by sexist, repressive (and repressed) people. "Good people" -- hip people -- shacked up, and had multiple partners. "Good people" didn't join the military either; unless their anti-war commitment was after the fact (as was the case with John Kerry) they went to Canada or got an exemption, and spat on returning Vietnam veterans as "baby killers" when they came home. (Good thing for them that the Supreme Court waited until the very end of the war to proclaim Roe vs. Wade!) The impact of these times has never left U.S. society; they reshaped the political left and many people with no politics at all.

The homosexual rights movement was in some respects the afterthought of the 1960's; the Stonewall riot (named after the gay bar upheaval that initiated the movement, and after which the "Stonewall Democrats" are named) came at the bottom of the decade. There were people back then that advocated homosexual marriage, but their cry was lost in the abandonment of the institution by the rest of the populace, especially their friends on the left.

Had the 1960's ethos made an overall triumph in the U.S. (an underlying assumption for one of the countries in The Island Chronicles) marriage would have taken such a dive as to be unattractive. But it didn't. That notwithstanding, in their quest for a change in the legal status of their relationships, homosexuals have at least three options to pursue:

1. They could call for the abolition of civil marriage altogether. This would be the more "Sixties radical" position to take, and certainly more consistent with their political antecedents.
2. They could whittle down the legal distinctions between the single and the married state.
3. They could call for homosexual marriage, which is what they are doing.

Option (3) is without a doubt the most bourgeois of the three; its selection demonstrates why liberalism is such a bust. They start out by wanting to transform society and mess up everyone else's life but end up selling out. It's kind of like the three stages of a revolution: first the moderates, then the extremists, and finally the opportunists. American liberalism has been in stage three for a long time. And they still want us to believe them! Such opportunism is underscored by the method which they are employing to get their desired results, i.e. the courts. At this point it is safe to say that a large segment of the elite of U.S. society is determined to reward the shock troops of the left (who are themselves a socio-economically privileged group) with homosexual marriage, and the simplest way to get this done is through the courts.

This leaves the rest of us in a quandary. Unable to get results on our own legal crusade (the display of the Ten Commandments) we now find ourselves getting yet another left-wing "have-to" shoved down our throats. What is to be done?

Getting a constitutional amendment through will be difficult. It's too bad that this has to be tried but the facile minds of our judiciary leave us no choice. Moreover this site takes a dim view of the "militia" solution to the problem; the events of 11 September 2001 only underscore this. The homosexuals are hoping that the legalisation of homosexual marriage will let to its moral legitimisation and the marginalisation of its opponents. In all of this change they may be assuming too much.

The U.S. was not built on a national or ethnic identity but an idea, an idea of freedom. An important cornerstone of that idea is that the will of the people--expressed through their democratic institutions--is reflected in the law of the land. This gives people an "ownership" in the system that has inspired generations of Americans to sacrifice and put energy into the system that other nations don't get from their own people. When courts short-circuit the legislative process in the way they're doing now, they tell people that it doesn't matter how their representatives vote because they--the judges and the elites from which they are drawn--are in charge. When that realisation sinks in, the whole dynamic of American society will experience a sea change that will dwarf the legalisation of homosexual marriage.

This could manifest itself in a number of ways. For example:

• Christian churches could revert to their pre-Constantinian position and discourage service in the military, as holiness and Pentecostal churches did during the early part of the last century. The Church of God, for instance, waited until V-J day in 1945 to adopt a friendlier position on military service by its members.
• They could also opt out of opposition to illegal immigration, figuring that those which jump the fence or swim across the river are fit members for their church (which they are in many cases.)
• Anyone who works for or is economically dependent upon a foreign corporation--espeically if it's state owned--is an agent of a foreign government, albeit legally.
• Christian churches could finally expect their members to either home school their children or send them to a Christian school, which would spare them both state indoctrination and mediocre education.
• Christians would have to interpret passages such as Roman 13 in the context they were originally written in--a dictatorial state whose actions they had no input in and the obedience of whose laws is done solely as a Christian witness, not as a civic obligation.
• With a little organisation, Christian churches could even enable their members to opt out of civil marriage altogether, divorcing themselves from an institution that first came from God Himself but has been nationalised to suit the needs of the state, and putting it back in the hands of Him who joined the first man and woman in the Garden.

Such moves would have the long term effect of strengthening the Christian community at the expense of the state. Homosexuals and the left would learn the hard way that the opposite of love is not hatred but apathy, and that it is hard to sustain a great country like the United States without the enthusiastic support of at least part of its population. In other words, they may win their battle but ultimately lose their war.

And war is something they need to think about these days. One of those things the homosexual community may get through is eliminating the "don't ask/don't tell" policy in the military. This would make it easy for people to be openly homosexual in the armed services, as was the case with ancient Thebes' "Sacred Band." They may need to do a little recruiting. What do you think will happen to the homosexual community if we get shar'ia?