The state of mind called Massachusetts is all set for homosexual marriages on Monday. A friend of mine put it well this morning. “Oh, great. Now John Kerry can marry Ted Kennedy.”
Here is how the political skirmishing will go. Homosexual marriage, once legal in one state, will attract homosexual couples from the other 49 states. They will return to their respective states and begin challenging the refusal of those states to recognize their marriages. Those challenges will be conducted all along the waterfront. In other words, one challenge will be on the basis of insurance benefits, another will be on the basis of inheritance, another will be on the recognition of divorce, and so on. These challenges will wend their way through the court system, and eventually the United States Supreme Court will decide whether or not the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution applies to this absurdity. Given the current make-up of the court, and the compelling nature of the argument (given the premises), I see no way that the Christian view of marriage will be upheld. If a heterosexual couple married in Massachusetts are also married in Idaho, I see no way for the Supreme Court to uphold (again, given the premises) the right of Idaho to discriminate against another couple, this time homosexual, on the basis of homosexuality alone.
In the meantime, it will be interesting to watch John Kerry sweat bullets on this one. He has to support or oppose, every leftoid bone in his body requires him to support, and every political bone in his body has to take account of Oklahoma, Montana, Texas, Idaho, Wyoming, and a few other states.
What we really need are for some courageous Massachusetts Christians to head down to the court house on Monday morning to apply for their marriage licenses. Some time ago I read a conversation (of the kind that floats around the Internet) that went something like this.
“Yes, Robert here and I would like to get a licence.”
“But John, you are already married.”
“My wife doesn’t mind. In fact, she suggested it.”
“I’m sorry, but we have to limit couples to an upper limit of two total.”
“Why?”
“Well, that is how it is traditionally . . .”
“Oh, right. Like you care about that.”
“Well, I’m still sorry. We can’t do what you ask.”
“So it is the official policy of the state of Massachusetts that bisexuals cannot express their sexuality within the holy bonds of matrimony?”
“Come again?”
“Bi-sexuals. People who are interested in both women and men. Count them. That requires at least two others to be included in the holy bonds of matrimony.”
“I’m sorry. Next?”
“No, wait! My brother Robert and I want to get married!”
“Your brother?”
“Right. We are really close. Now we want to be closer.”
“But . . . but . . . that’s incest!”
“I thought you might say that. And Robert and I talked about it. We think it would only be incest (not that there is anything wrong with that set of choices) if we were going to have sex. But we are not planning on having sex. That would be gross.”
“Why do you want to get married if you’re not going to have sex?”
“Lots of reasons. Companionship. Blue Cross. Things like that.”
“But you can’t do that!”
“Now you are telling me that Massachusetts requires married couples have sex? What happened to the government getting out of the bedroom . . ?”
“Well, I am sorry, Mr. . . Oh, hello! Thanks for coming, officer.”