Ask Auntie Pinko
Dear Auntie Pinko,
I am fifty-two years old, have been married for thirty years,
and I have three children. They are all grown up and self-supporting,
and two of them are married. I really love my husband, and we're
looking forward to retiring together if we can ever save enough
money to stop working. In fact, being married to my husband is one
of the most important things in my life.
I know that being married to their spouses is really important
to my daughter and son, too. Now I'm all confused and worried. Are
my marriage and my children's marriages in danger from all those
married gay people in Massachusetts? What are they going to do to
us? Will they find a way to make us get divorced? Will they find
a way to keep my youngest daughter from getting married at all?
Should I tell my Senator to support the Constitutional amendment
to protect our marriages?
Auntie Pinko is going to assume that you are being facetious,
here, and that you are well aware that there is nothing that "'married
gay people" can do to make you or your children get divorced,
or to prevent your daughter from getting married if she and another
person want to get married. While I don't share the fears of those
who believe that gay marriage somehow devalues their whole concept
of marriage, I won't doubt the sincerity of their beliefs or the
pain that they feel from this threat.
On the other hand, neither can I deny the pain that gay couples
endure because they have no access to the basic rights afforded
by legal recognition of their deep commitment to one another's love
and well-being. I've made no secret of my opinion that it's in the
best interests of communities to foster the creation of committed
relationships that make adults mutually responsible for each others'
welfare and the welfare of their children. Indeed, the more steps
the state can take to support such arrangements, the better.
But while I oppose the efforts of my fellow-citizens to restrict
such support to heterosexual couples, I fully support their right
to try and bring the law into conformity with their beliefs. That
fundamental right belongs to every citizen of America, whether I
share their beliefs or not. If they want to try and get a law passed
to keep gay people from getting married, they should be allowed
to make that attempt, even as I should be allowed to try and keep
such a law from being passed. Political self-determination makes
There is one thing that does concern me, though - and that is
that they are attempting to achieve their goals by adding this prohibition
to the Constitution. The last time America bought into the notion
that it was a good idea to enshrine "moral standards" into the Constitution,
the lesson was extremely expensive. We ended up repealing it, and
the echoes of its legacy in organized crime still haunt us.
Now, Auntie doesn't believe that there will suddenly be a criminal
traffic in "bootleg" gay marriages if the Constitution
prohibits them, with the associated empowerment of a criminal underworld
of gay marriage enablers and scofflaws. The direct negative effects
would certainly be more subtle than that. I do believe there would
still be negative effects - and ultimately profound ones - if we
set the precedent that our Constitution can be used to prevent certain
classes of people from trying to gain their idea of equal rights.
In fact, I oppose the attempt to make the Constitution do anything
except the two things that it was originally designed to do:
- Restrict the government from infringing on certain fundamental
rights of citizens to do all that is necessary to govern themselves;
- Ensure the equal access of all citizens to legal redress, and
participation in self-government.
That's it. That's what the Constitution is for, in Auntie's opinion.
Everything else is up for grabs under our system of self-government.
The only time the Constitution should ever be amended is when it
becomes clear that those two basic requirements of self-government
are being impeded or denied under the rule of law as it stands.
And the more we trivialize the gravity of that Constitutional purpose
by using it as a moral nanny to guide "correct behavior," the less
it will mean. And ultimately, that could diminish its power to protect
us in the areas that are most important.
And I cannot help but feel irritated by the waste of important
resources - the time and attention of our Senate, the infrastructure
that sustains their deliberative process, and the tax dollars that
pay for them - for such a clearly inappropriate purpose. Would it
be a waste of time for them to discuss such an issue if it were
a simple matter of passing a law? No. That's a legitimate function
of the legislative branch - to examine the feasibility of citizens'
will in such matters, and test whether it has sufficient support
to become law.
Auntie Pinko strongly suspects, however, that those who support
this Constitutional amendment have bypassed the legislative process
because they know perfectly well that such a law would never pass
the test of our Constitution as it stands. Their attempt to bypass
that process, however, would result in the subversion of our Constitution's
basic purpose - a far greater harm to American freedom than certain
states' recognition of the committed partnerships of gay couples.
Thanks for asking Auntie Pinko, Carla!
View Auntie's Archive
Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?
Do political discusions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at
a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their talking
points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand those
pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for
Just send e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org,
and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko" in
the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.