I very much enjoy Jonah Goldberg’s columns. But his most recent one, opposing the Defense of Marriage Amendment, is a howler of logic.
“The second problem with consequentialism is that it often works on the false assumption that we can know what the consequences will be. The last great constitutional disaster was Prohibition. The 18th Amendment was supposed to get Americans to stop drinking booze. People made straight-line predictions that if you made hooch illegal, people would stop drinking it.”
This argument would make sense if the Defense of Marriage Amendment prevented individuals from being homosexual. In which case, it would probably not be called the Defense of Marriage Amendment, but something like the Defense of Unstable Teens Questioning Their Orientation Amendment. But homosexuals are not running around getting married despite the law, in fact, there are vocal segments of the homosexual community which are appalled at the very notion of monogamous queer commitment, which flies in the face of the more radical elements that have tended to drive the gay agenda in the past.
From a conservative and Republican perspective, I would think Mr. Goldber would support the DMA as a political wedge issue, if nothing else. But then, Republicans are too busy getting excited about selling their political souls to the AARP to spend much time lining up behind the one issue that will ensure political victory for the next generation and beyond.
It makes no difference to me. I see no reason why the government should be involved in any way, shape or form. Remember, conservatives, the State had no power to permit divorce until it was given the power to marry. Expanding government power on behalf of your own interests will ALWAYS come back to bite you in the end. This has been obvious since the days of Marcus Aurelias; it has been true since one man first held power over another man.
Jonah, they’re here and they’re queer. They don’t want to get married. That’s not what it’s about.