The liberals agree that states ought not have the right to make sodomy laws, but states ought to have the right to establish gay marriage. How can liberals demand states' rights for gay marriage and refuse to allow states' rights for right to life, sodomy, or anything else? First of all I want to salute one of my all-time favorite Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia. He alone, after the Texas sodomy law was overturned, the state's rights to make sodomy laws was overturned by a recent Supreme Court decision, he, in his dissent, which was called hysterical and ranting by the New York Times and Washington Post, he alone warned where this was going to lead. And the first thing he said was, gay marriage is next on the agenda. He's right! Everybody was, "How dare he impugn our intentions. Why, who is he.? He's right. And there were all kinds of big names pooh-poohing Antonin Scalia for his conclusion, but he was right.
Second of all, this is not an issue of gay rights versus homophobia. What it is, is an issue between gay rights and the social order of society. If you listen to the left, one might think that the defense of marriage as it now exists between a man and a woman is right-wing extremism. Do you understand that people on the left are saying, if you defend the old-fashioned view of marriage as between a man and a woman you are a right-wing fundamentalist Christian extremist and we're going to take your nativity scene away from you, too, you know, or some such thing? That's how this is being cast. The very liberals, Senators Kennedy and Daschle early in the day in sound bites talking how tolerant they are and all this, well, get this: You are now a right-wing extremist if you happen to subscribe to the old-fashioned view of marriage. Now, if heterosexual marriage is weakened as an institution already, is it wise to weaken it more? Or maybe we would want to strengthen it?
Now, some elements of the equal-rights movement is very noble. But however noble the equal-rights-for-all argument is, there's something deeply troubling about undercutting marriage and undercutting the Boy Scouts in order to get to some notion of equal rights. There's something just doesn't follow there. In order to get to equal rights we've got to undercut marriage and we've got to undercut the Boy Scouts and who knows what else. And, by the way, if an institution works as it is, we've go to weaken it, we've got to undercut it in the name of equal rights. You can say it's Moynihan's version of defining deviancy down, but do you understand I'm not going to ask that. Obviously you do. It is patently clear that in order to get to some newfangled version of equality we've got to weaken long-standing, tried-and-true, tested institutions. Now, something about this is unsettling to me. And there's also a couple of other possibilities here, ladies and gentlemen. Is gay marriage really the issue? Or is this really just a cover for more new business for divorce lawyers? I mean there's a market segment out there that can't get married, thus can't get divorced, thus can't get screwed, financially. Now if they are able to get married, divorce lawyers can go in there and settle it. If we have gay marriage, does the book "It Takes a Village" get re-released as "It Takes a Greenwich Village"? Well, just some things to think about.
Here, look it, let's bring the politics into this. Here, I have a story. This is the Associated Press, where the presidential candidates stand on gay marriage. I'm going to go through this list. Every Democrat with a chance, and we're being very generous here, but just for the sake of discussion, every Democrat with a chance opposes gay marriage. Now, what does that tell you, my friends? These people seek the vote of America. Wesley Clark opposes gay marriage, supports civil unions. Howard Dean opposes gay marriage, supports civil unions. John Edwards, metrosexual Democrat, opposes gay marriage, supports domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples. Dick Gephardt, opposes gay marriage even if one is a milk truck driver, supports civil unions. John Kerry, after he heard what Howard Dean said, he said, "I oppose gay marriage, too, and support the right to civil unions." The Democrats without a prayer of getting the nomination, Dennis Kucinich supports gay marriage. Separate is not equal. Joe Lieberman and, really, you know, if Joe Lieberman dropped out would anybody even know? He opposes gay marriage, would let states decide about civil unions. But he won't let states decide on much else. And Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun, I threw the page away, I don't know what they think. What? One at a time, one at a time. What is it? They both support? You gotta be kidding, Al Sharpton, a man of the cloth here? Christian action network, neighborhood, what is it called, the action network. He dropped Christian? Was it ever Christian action network? No, it wasn't. He is for gay marriage? Carol Moseley Braun supports, of course Pat Ireland from the Young Women's Christian Association is now her chairman. But anyway, that's it. I mean, the ones that have a chance, and again being very generous about that, all oppose gay marriage, and that's their constituency group. They contribute a lot of money; they vote for them.