Gay marriage goes to Washington

By Paul Moomjean 04/04/2013

On March 26 and 27, the Supreme Court of the United States set into motion what it is hoped will be the final go-around on the issue of gay marriage. I’ve argued that this one issue has become too distracting during election cycles, forcing Republicans to answer no-win questions and look like bigots on the nightly news. Like abortion, the gay marriage issue takes a religious and moral issue and completely politicizes it to the point that people don’t even feel comfortable saying, “I feel this issue should be legal but that doesn’t mean I agree with those who exercise this particular freedom.” With the Supreme Court weighing in on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA to all those cool acronym aficionados out there, it is hoped the issue will be finalized this year.

But let’s talk about what a “progressive” final judgment on Prop. 8 and DOMA will do in America. Think about how this will affect everything from adoption to gender identity.

Evangelical leader Dr. Michael Brown, president of ICN Ministries, sees the acceptance of gay marriage as the Pandora’s box from hell. Literally.

Brown, in an interview on a Christian blog, was asked if people could hold conflicting attitudes about being for the legalization of an issue you morally are opposed to.

“Not if they are being consistent,” Brown said. “If they believe homosexuality is wrong, then there’s no reason to redefine marriage based on someone’s romantic attractions and sexual desires. … And it is not right to put a child in a home that guarantees he or she will have either no mother or no father. And if the child was given up for adoption by a parent years earlier, wasn’t it with the goal of putting that child into a home with a mom and dad?”

While Brown is taking the hard-line position, his analysis does raise the question, will the acceptance of gay marriage prohibit churches and synagogues from being able to preach against the lifestyle, and will Catholic orphanages be forced to give children to parents they deem unacceptable, therefore potentially shutting down the entire industry?

And will churches be sued if they don’t marry same-sex couples? Think about it.

While I’ve argued that marriage should be out of the government’s hands in general, and since that ruling will most likely not be the outcome, I will clarify that I believe gay marriage is not what is best for society. Well-respected conservative writer and radio show host Dennis Prager wrote in 2012, “To argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is immoral is to argue that every moral thinker, and every religion and social movement in the history of mankind prior to the last 20 years in America and Europe was immoral. About no other issue could this be said.”

If gay marriage passes, then, essentially, there are no real gender differences. Right? If men can marry men and women can marry women, then basically what is the point of calling anyone a man or a woman?

Essentially “men” will just be people with a penis. And “women” will be people with breasts. Kind of like how some people just have bigger muscles than others.

If marriage does not define gender, than what does? Biology? But those are just names given. Once we, as a society, have abandoned the suppression of gender labels, so can the secular science world. No?

Our society is already becoming more and more genderless. High schools are voting for boys as homecoming queens and girls as kings. Father-daughter dances are being canceled due to gender discrimination, and even dating sites like eHarmony are being forced to offer same-sex dating options.

Gay marriage will be the next step to a genderless society. As for those who ask why that is wrong, since we are all just people, I would ask them if they would feel comfortable with coed public bathrooms and coed showers and locker rooms at the gym?

My guess is that most of these progressives would feel uncomfortable if McDonald’s or Gold’s Gym adopted such new advancements in restroom philosophies. 

Be honest and ask yourself. Wouldn’t you? 


Other Stories by Paul Moomjean

Related Articles


Women get 77 cents to a man’s $1.00 of pay. It is time for a genderless society that treats everyone as equals. Ask any working woman if she would like to get equal pay to men’s pay and I think you will hear a resounding yes. I remember going through Marine Corps boot camp and having to use the toilet without doors or dividers for privacy and recruits looking on, I wished for privacy. Privacy has nothing to do with a genderless society. If privacy has anything to do with anything it has to do with privacy. If you don’t like this change you need to find a better argument, Mr. Moomjean, because the one you have just makes Gay rights look like a very good thing.

posted by Wydo on 4/04/13 @ 09:19 p.m.

Even though I don't agree with Mr. Moomjean most of the time, I'm happy to accept him in the VC Reporter because he's practically Voltaire compared to, oh, Forrest Mize. Furthermore, I agree with some of the things he says here, such as that the gay-marriage issue is a ridiculous waste of time and that it shouldn't be discussed in the political arena.

But there are two points Moomjean made that really should be addressed, because they are wrong. One has to do with religion, while the other concerns the very nature of humanity.

First, Moomjean writes: "[W]ill the acceptance of gay marriage prohibit churches and synagogues [incidentally, I can't help noticing he didn't mention mosques] from being able to preach against the lifestyle...?" This question has already been answered, and the answer is "No." The people advocating same-sex marriage are generally the same people who believe in the strict separation of church and state; they have promised that religious institutions will be exempt from accusations of violating civil rights.

Moomjean also writes: "Once we, as a society, have abandoned the suppression of gender labels, so can the secular science world. No?" He is, like many people, confusing "gender" and "sex." "Sex" is strictly a biological term, while "gender" is not biological or even particularly social. It is - or should be - a purely subjective classification, one that designates whether an individual views oneself as masculine or feminine, or even male or female. "Sex" for humans is cut-and-dried; only some of the lower animals, such as fishes, can naturally change their sex, so Moomjean's worry that the biological sciences are about to be rewritten is unfounded.

I wonder if Mr. Moomjean is also afraid of robots, since they could cause us to abandon the suppression of distinctions between persons and machines.

posted by James Basolo on 4/05/13 @ 10:54 p.m.

Your article "Gay marriage goes to Washington" had to be brought to my attention recently and reminded me why I never bother to pick up the Reporter (and why I will continue to dismiss it). The author's ridiculous fear-mongering and bigotry are such an embarrassment to your newspaper – and ought to be an embarrassment to every business that advertises within. Why should I, or anyone with a shred of self-respect, bother to "eat out more often" and patronize local businesses that advertise in the Reporter when your paper prints such trash?

posted by mrburlesk on 4/09/13 @ 12:33 a.m.
Post A Comment

Requires free registration.

(Forgotten your password?")