Ron Tunning was our guest this weekend on Meet the New Press (you can listen to the discussion here). Ron is the chairman of the local Democrat committee. He is also a fierce advocate of gay marriage. I—as you can clearly tell in the Podcast—am not. I am just as adamant in my defense of traditional marriage as Ron is of changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples and, if they have a powerful enough lobbying group, anyone.
There simply is no middle ground between us, unfortunately.
One line of questioning I attempted to pursue in the interview with Ron didn’t go very far, but it is this: Are civil unions the end game for the homosexual lobby? Will gay activists be happy with civil unions or will they springboard from the civil unions law into the courtroom in pursuit of a judicial edict mandating full-blown gay marriage? (For the record, I think civil unions are plenty bad enough to get exercised about without the threat of gay marriage on the horizon. But I wanted to know where the gay lobby was headed with all of this.)
It is clear from the interview that Ron didn’t want to “go there.” But one place to look for answers might be to our neighbors to the south in Connecticut. The Connecticut legislature passed a civil unions law, which the governor then signed. Sound familiar? Well, wouldn’t you know it—the homosexual lobby is now unhappy with civil unions and is suing for full marital rights for homosexuals. They are also pushing a gay marriage bill in the legislature.
Now, the Connecticut law could be significantly different from the New Hampshire bill. It may be the case that the New Hampshire bill has been written in such a way as to make legal challenges less inviting and more difficult. But that’s not really the point. The point is that the goal—the goal!—here is to rewrite the definition of marriage under the law. And I state again, as I did repeatedly on the show: This has come about with shockingly little public input and discussion.
One line of argument I did not pursue in the interview, but which my co-host Skip Murphy did pursue, was the so-called slippery slope argument: If this is okay now, what next? Ron’s answer was, essentially: Screw you, I’ve got mine. If the polygamists want marital rights, let ‘em form a lobby group and make it happen. Again, Connecticut shows us a glimpse at the future:
Plaintiff’s attorney Bennett Klein told the court Monday that the fundamental principles of marriage are not based on gender. … "It is really a relationship of two legal equals based on mutual consent by which they take responsibility for each other, and that relationship is protected by the state," he said.
The legal argument here is that any two “legal equals” form a marriage. Brother and sister? And why only two? See the problem here?
Some concerned citizens and I are beginning to collect petition signatures under the banner of “Conserve NH” to urge Gov. John Lynch to veto the civil unions bill when it reaches his desk. If he signs it, we’ll push for repeal. The politicians didn’t want to talk about this issue during the 2006 election, nor when they rushed the bill through the Senate over Easter Weekend. But discussion of civil unions and gay marriage is now inevitable.
