KINDER'S COMMENTARY: DRAW THE LINE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGES

On television this week, I saw a news report relating the story of a lesbian "wedding" held in Carbondale, Ill., a few days ago. So do San Francisco mores, after a fashion, arrive in the heartland.

Do we really want to go down this road? Shouldn't we pause and think long and hard before doing so? For several thousand years, marriage has been understood to be a solemn contract between a man, a woman and their God, sanctioned by the state, whose principal reason for being is procreation and the nurturing of children. Understood in this light, ask yourself: Is a homosexual union really no different from a heterosexual union between a husband and wife, legally married in the eyes of God and man?

In the eyes of our ancestors, there was never any doubt. Search the relevant Missouri statutes and you'll come to the section that makes certain attempted marital unions, in the words of the law, "presumptively void," that is to say, non-existent in the law. Brothers can't marry sisters, uncles their nieces, aunts their nephews, etc. But you'll find no prohibition against same-sex unions, reflecting a pervasive societal understanding so broad and deep as to be self-evident. The issue didn't even need to be addressed. Until now.

The Hawaii Supreme Court heard a case last year brought by some homosexuals seeking state approval for marriage. The court sent the case back to the trial court with a mandate that the state had to demonstrate "a compelling interest" in a prohibition on same-sex marriages in order to withhold its approval. When the case arrives back in the high court later this year, it is widely believed same-sex unions will be approved there. Under the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. constitution, mandating that each state grant "full faith and credit" to the legal acts of other states, the other 49 states would be forced to acknowledge the legal validity of Hawaii's homosexual marriages.

In anticipation of such an outcome, state legislatures across America have begun doing what, until recently, nobody thought necessary: debating laws to add same-sex unions to the list of prohibited marriages. In California, the assembly has passed such a bill, as have legislative chambers in South Dakota and a handful of other states. After both houses in Kansas acted, Gov. Bill Graves signed the bill into law this past week. In Missouri, I introduced such a bill and saw it win committee approval, only to die when the committee chairman didn't turn the bill in for timely consideration by the full Senate. A House bill met a similar fate this session. The effort will continue next year, after a little intervening event called the November elections. In the meantime, however, Missourians are entitled to ask why the Democratic leadership that has so long controlled both the Missouri House and Senate seems intent on burying popular, commonsense measures such as these.

It isn't necessary to be a gay-basher, or even to take the slightest step in that direction, to affirm the sanctity of marriage as a sacrament solely between a man and a woman. The attitudes of most Americans are tolerant, at least as concerned about relations between consenting adults. But toleration has its limits, and they can fairly be said to have been reached where homosexual "marriage" is concerned.

Time marches on. And new chapters in the culture war launched by the radical left are opened nearly every day. Surely, with an eye toward the health and welfare of children -- not to mention our society -- this is one place to draw the line.

~Peter Kinder is the associate publisher of the Southeast Missourian and a state senator from Cape Girardeau.