Wehner to Frank: You Are Being Unfair to Warren

Peter Wehner has a particularly nauseating piece in Commentary in which he tells Barney Frank that it was very unfair of him to say that it’s unfair of Rick Warren to liken gay marriage to incest:

What has Frank and other gay rights advocates riled up is that Warren backed a California ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage (the measure was approved by voters last month). In the course of defending his stand, Warren has made the point that there are lots of arrangements one could envision consenting adults wanting–from polygamy to incest–that we would not want to label “marriage.” In making that comparison, gay rights advocates have decided to try to turn the Reverend Warren into a reviled figure. Let’s therefore try to examine the argument Warren is making.

This is snake oil. There is nothing about Warren’s “argument” as “examined” by Wehner that we haven’t heard a zillion times before. It’s nothing more than the same old “marriage has always been defined as between one man and one woman”/”If homosexuals are allowed to marry, what’s next? Marrying a goat?” garbage dressed up in somewhat fancier clothes. Instead of saying, “Homosexuality is unnatural,” Wehner says it’s un-teleological:

The core of this case, which is articulated in William Bennett’s 2001 book The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family (full disclosure: I assisted Bennett in writing the book), is that marriage is not an arbitrary social arrangement; it is, rather, based on teleology and the different, complementary nature of men and women. It is also an institution that cannot be understood apart from its cultural, biological, and religious underpinnings. It cannot be redefined by fiat.

Suppose, for example, that a man and three women, all adults, wanted to marry. They insist they love one another and that marriage would strengthen their bond. As consenting adults, they should be allowed to enter any arrangement they desire. Or assume that a man and his 22-year-old daughter decide that they, too, love one another and want to spend the rest of their lives together. They, too, insist that they love each other and that allowing them to marry would represent the best of America: tolerant, respectful of the desires of individuals, and part of the expansion of individual rights that we witnessed during the Civil Rights era. Now ask advocates of same-sex marriage to make an argument against these arrangements.

They will say that marriage isn’t about marrying as many people as you love; it’s about marrying one other person you love. It should therefore be restricted to two people. But why is this? Who are gay-rights advocates to insist that we limit the number of people in marriage to two? Polygamy, after all, has been much more prevalent in history than gay marriage, a movement that was essentially unheard of until a few years ago. But homosexuality is “morally and psychologically” superior to polygamy, others insist. And how do they know? As Charles Krauthammer has pointed out, many Americans believe heterosexuality to be “morally and psychologically” superior to homosexuality, which is why they deny the validity of homosexual marriage.

Same-sex marriage advocates, in dismissing the time-honored definition of marriage and de-linking it from its cultural, religious, and traditional understanding, have lost the ability to draw boundaries against a slew of other arrangements. Once people decide that their own human longings give them license to lay claim to marriage, the definition of the institution is arguably up for grabs. Everyone who wants to redefine marriage will invoke the arguments made by same-sex marriage advocates–from insisting that society should not set up roadblocks to their happiness and their desire to enter into loving, faithful relationships; to arguing that their lives would be incomplete without marriage; to claiming that government is wrong to deny them equal protection.

Please. The best retort to this drivel is the prominently placed ad for MeetGayCouples.com in the left sidebar right next to the first blockquote from Bennett. Would Commentary accept an ad from the North American Man-Boy Love Association? No? I guess homosexuality is not analogous to pedophilia then. Would they accept an ad promoting incest? Or polygamy? Or of a human having sex with an animal? Whaddya know — it seems that homosexuality is not analogous to any of those things.

So Wehner and Commentary and Rick Warren and all the other homophobic cretins who supported Proposition 8 are all dishonest, hypocritical fools.

What a surprise.

2 Responses to “Wehner to Frank: You Are Being Unfair to Warren”

  1. Kathy says:

    Thank you, Mike. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook