I understand your view on same-sex marriage recently “evolved.” Citing the sacrifice of Christ, along with the Golden Rule, you indicated that your decision to now support gay marriage is based upon the concept of “treat[ing] others the way you would want to be treated.” You said “the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president.” That’s great Mr. President, but I wonder just how consistent you’re willing to be.
I suppose you agree with the philosophy most gay-rights activists embrace…that the government has no right to tell two consenting adults what they can and cannot do in the bedroom. You said this issue was one of equality and fairness. But does your newfound moral yardstick only extend so far?
What would you say, Mr. President, if three consenting adults fell in love and wanted a loving, committed relationship? Are you prepared to embrace polygamy? Perhaps that’s not such a stretch for one whose own father was a polygamist. But are you willing to advocate a change to current laws to make it legal? Suppose one man fell in love with seven women, and they all agreed that marriage was the relationship they wanted. If this is truly about equality and fairness, shouldn’t these 8 consenting adults have the same “rights” as a pair of homosexual men?
What about incestuous relationships between adults, Mr. President? Are you prepared to go out on a political limb to affirm your support for these consenting adults? If a man falls in love with his sister, and the two of them want to be married…shouldn’t the state grant them the same rights as two unrelated lesbians? After all, the government has no right to tell two consenting adults what they can and cannot do in the bedroom, right? Of course, this would have to apply to all incestuous adult relationships. If a father and daughter fall in love, who is the government to tell them they can’t be married? The same applies to a mother and her adult son. It would only be ‘fair’ to allow these consenting adults the same ‘rights’ as two unrelated gay men. Wouldn’t you agree, Mr. President?
Does the possibility of conceiving a child with birth defects trump the fairness issue? I can’t see how you can say that and maintain consistency with your stance on abortion. Remember, it’s her body…her choice, Mr. President. What right should the government have to tell a woman what she does with her body? If a woman conceives a child and decides to have it killed, that is perfectly acceptable, according to your position. So who are you to tell a woman she can’t decide with whom she wants to conceive a child, and then whether or not she wants to carry that child to full term?
Let’s not stop there, Mr. President. There are so many other relationship possibilities that must be granted the same equal opportunities that heterosexual couples now enjoy. How about a same-sex, incestuous relationship? If two adult homosexual brothers fall in love and decide they want the state to recognize their relationship, naturally they should be allowed to marry, right? Likewise, two lesbian sisters shouldn’t be treated unfairly either, should they?
But wait, there’s more. How about a same-sex, incestuous, polygamous relationship? Suppose three or even four brothers realized they were gay and decided they wanted to marry each other? Surely you would fight for these consenting adults to enjoy the same ‘rights’ as the same-sex couples you now champion.
If your opposition to incestuous relationships is based upon the “ick” factor, I’m confident you don’t want to go down that road. Though I agree a sexual relationship between siblings is unpalatable, I have a feeling you might get the same response from most people regarding sex between two men. Therefore, the ick factor must not be allowed to play a part in determining the legality of who can and cannot marry.
Of course, any of these combinations of consenting adults could be great parents, right Mr. President? Since it is now legal for same-sex couples to adopt and raise children, surely this same right should be protected for the four ‘brother-husbands.’ Imagine the fun of having four dads? A child could play four different sports and have a different father coach each one.
I wonder if Sasha and Malia would have the same attitude toward these four married men, as they have toward the gay couples that are the parents of their friends. As you so eloquently put it, surely “it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently.”
Preposterous, isn’t it Mr. President?
The fact is, by definition…marriage is between man and woman. More than two-thirds of all states have reaffirmed this definition, with more to follow. And so, unless you are willing to embrace all consenting adult relationships, you are not being consistent, as you claim you are being. It would then appear, Mr. President, that the evolution of your stance on same-sex marriage may simply be for political gain. But then…I don’t think anyone has to even wonder about that.