"President George W. Bush has an opportunity to reaffirm a positive message about marriage," observes David Coolidge of the Marriage Law Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. "From his bully pulpit, the President could endorse efforts to enact state laws that affirm or define marriage explicitly." Coolidge thinks the President "should provide leadership to the task of reaffirming marriage in American law nationwide. He should vow that he will never accept the legalization of same-sex 'marriage' in American life and that he will do all within his power to stop it."
Coolidge emphasizes that "President Bush will have the opportunity to appoint new justices to the Supreme Court, not to mention hundreds of other federal judges," and he urges him "to consider whether these jurists will do justice to the institution of marriage." Coolidge also urges the President to support the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. "When these issues finally come before the Supreme Court," he advises, "the solicitor general should argue firmly that . . . true liberty and true equality are entirely compatible with a law stating that marriage requires a man and a woman."
Coolidge recommends that President Bush "execute federal law in a way that preserves the distinction between married couples and unmarried persons and also upholds the right of private organizations to support this view of marriage in their programs." He says the President should "instruct the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services to make sure that their publications and guidelines relating to marriage and family express a clear understanding that marriage is the union of a man and a woman."
On the rare occasions when we condescend to address this absurd subject, we inevitably provoke the wrath of those high-minded Americans who pride themselves on their acceptance of "alternative life-styles," without, of course, having any idea what they entail. We're obliged, in responding, to point out that homosexuals already have equal rights, that they can get married any time they want -- to someone of the opposite sex. That's the nature of marriage, after all, the sine qua non. There's no such thing as same-sex marriage; it's a contradiction in terms. And we ask our critics how -- with all the broken homes in this country, all the unwed mothers, the illegitimate children, the kids confined in daycare for 8-12 hours a day, the juvenile delinquency -- how can they be so blind as to ignore the disastrous and predictable effects of the ultimate effort to undermine the family? Same-sex marriage is a fraud; like all counterfeits, it will devalue and expel the genuine article.
There are reams of research on this subject, and any honest homosexual will confirm it all. Anthony Burgess' novel The Wanting Seed, written fifty years ago, spells out precisely where we're headed: toward a total inversion of the moral order. That's a prospect only a fool would tolerate.