Wonders Never Cease

One of the best things about living in Sun City is the availability of the print edition of a real newspaper, The Austin American Statesman. I have felt news and opinion deprived since the Atlanta Journal Constitution quit delivering their print edition to our area of NE GA. I freely admit that I don't always agree with the editorial opinions of the AJC but I don't detect an overall liberal bias in the paper, especially considering their line up of columnists. Yes, the editor-in-chief qualifies as a liberal.

This morning's edition of the Austin American Statesman presented an opinion column by former US Representative and Libertarian Presidential nominee, Mr. Bob Barr: Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. The thrust of the article is Mr. Barr's opinion that the DOMA he helped draft and push through Congress several years ago was ill-advised and represents an intrusion of the Federal Government into the private affairs of citizens and an usurpation of state constitutional rights. Three direct quotes from the article:

It's time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people.

If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with these notions.

In reference to President Elect Obama's previous vote and statement against the Federal Marriage Amendment ("Decisions about marriage should be left to the states".), He was right then, and as I have to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go.

In one of my previous newspaper columns, I congratulated the people in Mr. Barr's former distroct for not re-electing him. I markedly prefer Mr. Barr as a newspaper columnist and political commentator rather than as an elected official. (Please note that the AJC regularly carries Mr. Barr's column - an indication that the paper is not hopelessly liberal.)

I believe Mr. Barr and I share one common feature: Our devotion to a level playing field in the Constitutional and civil rights arenas. From his columns, I can reasonably infer that he and I are both members of the NRA and the ACLU. He often joins these organizations is their lawsuits against federal intrusion into our lives.

Arguments that the majority of Americans support heterosexual marriage and oppose both homosexual marriage and civil unions do not impress me. I do not believe we should use the US Constitution and legal processes to impose religious strictures on the citizenry. Simply because the majority of Americans, who by the way are not church-going people, believe in the "sanctity of heterosexual marriage", does not mean such a positionf is absolutely correct in the Biblical sense. I remind myself frequently that God constitutes a majority of one and is seldom, if ever, swayed by majority opinion of moral issues. Also, would a 50.5% majority of voters constitute a true majority?

Yes, some laws that arguably derive from Judeo-Christian principles should be incorporated into our legal system. Prohibitions agains murder, false witness (pejury), stealing immediately come to mind. Nevertheless, despite these laws that apparently have almost univeral acceptance, these legal strictures are violated daily, if not hourly.

I will also point out that the most severe criticism about the "sanctity" of heterosexual marraiage (one man with one woman) comes from heterosexuals themselves. Has anyone looked at the divorce rate in this country, especially among fundamentalist and, presumably, politically conservative couples?

I do not read the Bible, keeping in mind the behavior of the patriarchs, as stipulating marriage must be heterosexual, one man and one woman. While Andrea and I have been married and in a monagamous relationship for almost 50 years, I don't appreciate and I don't need anyone to instruct me on my beliefs about marriage. I certainly don't need laws to enforce our union.

I fail to see why anyone should feel threatened if homosexuals wish to be married and enjoy all of the attendent civil benefits. We must keep in mind that marriage is a civil affair, that is, a non-religious union under our Constitution. We may be married in a church but the union has no legal standing absent a civil government issued marriage license. Furthermore, couples can marry in a civil ceremony without any hint of religious context.

Where's the threat to heterosexuals if homosexuals marry? I am unaware of any data that say children of homosexual unions grow up to be homosexuals at any greater rate than children from heterosexual unions. If anyone has such data generated by legitimate scientific methods, please inform me.

Will homosexual marriage destroy the moral fiber of this country? I repeat my observations about successful heterosexual marriages (divorce rate more than 50%, adultry rate at least that high): Heterosexuals have done an excellent job preserving the sanctity of marriage.

I say let heterosexuals through behavior, not simply words and political imprecations, demonstrate the beauty of homosexual marriage. Let homosexuals have the freedom to do the same thing.

OK, I doubt that Mr. Barr will go as far as I do but he at least appears to recognise that the feds do need to stay out of the personal and private aspects of our lives. That is, he definitely is committed to civil liberties.

Laissez les bons temps rouler!