May 3, 2004

CHUCK HARDER, HOST: We are back, and let's talk to Ambassador Alan Keyes. How are you?

ALAN KEYES: I'm doing fine. How are you?

HARDER: I'm just working my way through life, Ambassador. I'm glad to have you.

KEYES: I'm glad to be with you.

HARDER: Tell us, what are you doing in Massachusetts? I understand you are deeply involved in a project. Tell us what's going on, and where you fit in--and that said, you've got the microphone.

KEYES: Well, actually, I have just been acting with others in support of efforts to try to reverse what's been going on in Massachusetts, with respect to the effort to recognize so-called same-sex marriages. The courts there are obviously trying to impose this against the will of the people of Massachusetts, and despite that, I think a lot of the folks in the state feel helpless.

We are joining with others in an effort to try to both help folks in Massachusetts who are fighting against this ruling, mobilize public support in the state to put pressure on the legislature to do something about it, but also, of course, as part of an effort to forestall what will be, if this goes forward, a general assault on the institution of marriage throughout the county.

HARDER: Yeah. Who's behind it?

KEYES: Well, I think that what's clear is that this has been in preparation for quite a long time, and I think that folks who are pushing this same-sex idea--whether it's the homosexual lobby, people in the liberal legal profession, and so forth--have done so, I believe, with a view not just of promoting a false idea of some right to marry on the part of homosexuals, but also because they know that at the end of the day it contradicts the very idea of what marriage is all about, and will lead to the destruction of the institution.

And, of course, the marriage-based family is one of the essential institutions at the root of the possibility of sustaining individual freedom in the country, and as a result, I think those who favor a more socialist approach and government-dominated approach have always seen the family system based on the marriage-based family as an obstacle to their ambitions.

So, I think this goes way back as part of the effort to transform the society into one that in essence cannot sustain free institutions.

HARDER: Ambassador Alan Keyes, I have a question. If you gave these people everything they wanted, what would you wind up with?

KEYES: Well, unhappily, I think what's involved here is an assault on the very idea of what marriage is all about--and this is forgotten in the discussion. People talk as if this is somehow about homosexuals. No, it's not. Their situation and condition is being used by folks who are assaulting the very meaning of marriage, itself.

As I often explain to people, you go back, even in societies like ancient Greece, where homosexuality was practiced, and tolerated, and accepted, and so forth and so on, if you had walked up to somebody on the way to the Athenian assembly and said, "I'm going to propose a same-sex marriage law," they wouldn't have gotten angry with you, they wouldn't have been outraged or indignant, they would have laughed in your face.

And the reason for that laughter would have been the commonsense understanding prevalent throughout human history that marriage is about procreation, and if you in principle can't procreate, then marriage has no relevance for you, it's not significant, it's not an institution in which you can in fact participate.

I think the fact that we have lost sight of what is at the heart of the institution of marriage--now, I'm not talking here about personal relationships. I'm talking about a social institution, because, after all, when you have in society, through the mechanism of law and government, an institution that regulates a relationship, there has to be a social reason for that. It is not done in the case of mere friendships or other intimate relations in our society. A matter of fact, I think most of us realize that our friendships aren't the government's business.

Why is marriage, this most intimate of personal relationships, also the government's business? Because marriage leads to procreation, and procreation, throughout the history of human society, has given rise to claims and counter-claims and expectations and obligations that have caused serious feuding and conflict and difficulty for the peace and order of society.

So, in order to deal with those consequences, societies have established an understanding: when will a relationship constitute marriage? When will parents have certain obligations toward their children? When can children have certain expectations of their parents? When must society accept and recognize the authority of parents over children? And so forth and so on.

This was all in relationship to the ultimate and essential purpose of marriage, which is procreation--not, as some of these people are arguing, making people feel better about their sexual relationships or their love or anything else. You don't need a legal institution for those kinds of purposes.

And so, what they're doing here is going forward in such a way as to destroy the essential meaning of marriage. And of course, we've already seen the result, because in some of the columns, even one in the Boston Globe, some of these Leftists are now suggesting, "Well, marriage isn't the government's business. We can get the government out of this all together."

So, having taking an approach which ignores the reason for the social institution of marriage, they now take that as an excuse to say, well, we shouldn't even have government recognition. And, of course, what that means is that, in violation of the fundamental social contract, the society is going to withdraw respect for the marriage institution and the marriage-based family--which, by the way, is precedent to society, existed before governments and societies were formed, and which has certain independent, natural claims to respect which, if the government violates those claims and refuses to acknowledge, for instance, the authority of parents, and so forth, that is a fundamental breach of the social contract through which societies come into being.

And so, we get into a situation that I think leads ultimately to conflict, dissention, and the dissolution of civil society.

HARDER: Ambassador Alan Keyes, you and I both know that if a couple, no matter how they are structured, does not legally marry, there are many, many methods legally that they could do all the things they want to do to protect each other financially, et cetera. There's trusts, there's agreements, there's partnerships, there's all kinds of legal methods that a couple of same-sex could protect each other for life without having to say "I do."

KEYES: Well, that's certainly true. I think there are mechanisms in this society--and I would not put this in a sexual context, necessarily.

HARDER: I understand.

KEYES: There are ways in which people who have affection for one another, and regard for one another, and concern and care for one another, can in fact establish under the law certain kinds of relationships, certain kinds of financial relations, and so forth and so on, in order to make sure that they will be able to act on one another's behalf, if I can put it that way, in the event of certain circumstances. That, I think, is part of the mechanisms that are available to private people to sort of put in place things that will respect their relationships and affections in life.

The institution of marriage, even though they talk about it as if it's all about privileges and all of that--that's not true! It didn't come into existence in order to confer certain privileges. As a matter of fact, quite the contrary. I think the institution of marriage clearly exists so that society will recognize and ultimately join in the enforcement of certain obligations and burdens that are the consequence of the essential mission of marriage, which is to assure orderly procreation and respect for both the authority of parents and the obligations and inherent rights the children have in the context of the family.

HARDER: A good example of how same-sex couples can have their cake and eat it, too, without saying "I do," is the case of the departed actor Raymond Burr. Raymond Burr had a male lover who was with him for many, many, many years. After Raymond Burr died, he willed to his male lover all of the things that he had left, including a winery, and what have you, so that the other individual is financially secure for the rest of his life. Now, I don't know who he will will all the stuff to, because, obviously, they don't have any kids.

That said, a short timeout. We will reconvene with Ambassador Alan Keyes. Chuck Harder, For the People, Liberty Broadcasting. More to come.

[break]

HARDER: We are talking to Ambassador Alan Keyes, and he is working very, very hard on the issue of same-sex marriage legislation in Massachusetts. Ambassador, I think we've made the point that, without question, those same-sex couples who want to protect each other can do it legally without saying "I do."

KEYES: Well, I think it's important to understand--and I guess I hesitate a little always to put what you just said in a sexual context, because I don't think it's there. This is just something that people can do in this society if they have friendship and affection for one another--and I don't think all friendship and affection needs to be understood as sexual.

HARDER: I understand.

KEYES: But you're right. Such friendship-relations, such affectionate relations between individuals, can in fact be conducted in a way that allows folks to take care of each other, make provision for each other, and so forth and so on. And I think that that is a point that's important to understand: the false nature of the arguments that are made as to why this whole assault on marriage is taking place, as if it's being done for the sake of the circumstances and rights of individuals, and so forth.

In point of fact, what is happening here is a disregard for the essential meaning of marriage, and the requirements that in a free society we have a marriage-based family, in which heterosexual couples have and enjoy those rights which are inherent in the family, independent, in fact, of positive law and government.

Governments are established in fact to secure these rights, including, and especially, the right to those relationships which in a sense constitute the first form of property in any given society. You know, the first thing that we own, beyond God's gift of our own bodies, is those relationships that constitute the family: our own children, our own parents, and so forth.

HARDER: Right.

KEYES: If you undermine the institution on which that sense of fundamental ownership at the individual level is based, you haven't just assaulted an institution, you have called into question the whole doctrine of rights and liberties on which our society is based.

HARDER: What do the radicals want? If they had their way, and they could remake this country, what would it look like? When would they finally shut up?

KEYES: I'm not sure, I've got to tell you.

HARDER: [laughs]

KEYES: One of the problems, I think, is that there are probably some well-intentioned people who are supporting this misguided and damaging movement, but I think it involves a lot of folks who haven't thought through the consequences of what they're doing--including, of course, people in the Massachusetts legislature, maybe some folks on these courts, citizens at large, people who no longer think about fundamental issues.

You know, we're a free society, supposedly. We have institutions of representative government. How did they get here? This hasn't characterized society for thousands of years until America was founded, so what did it take in order for these institutions to come into being? Well, one of the things that it took was a certain understanding of the human capacity for freedom, going along with a sense of responsibility, which implied that we have the ability to make decisions that aren't simply determined by our circumstances, by our passions, by our lusts.

One of the things that disturbs me is that the whole argument being made in this society about homosexuality suggests that the sexual passion, which these folks feel is somehow genetically based, can't be controlled by them, is not subject in fact to human decision and will--and that has the implication of denying the capacity for freedom, that is, the capacity to make choices that are not simply determined by our passions, that in fact is at the heart of our whole society.

If we don't have that freedom, then freedom means nothing--and if it means nothing, then you don't have to have institutions that respect it, do you? And that means that an assault eventually takes place against our whole way of life, because we have embraced a false understanding of who we are as human beings.

And that's really what's at the heart, I think, in terms of consequences, of this whole movement. We are not just embracing a false idea of marriage, we are embracing a false understanding of who human beings are, and by doing so, we are fundamentally undermining the claim to freedom and rights which is the very foundation of our nation's life.

HARDER: I happen to agree with you. I think that this is something that the radical fringe would like to do to further dismantle the most successful country on planet earth. They would like to see us fail, I do not know why, and I know that once we fail, they'll then be sorry, because they don't want to live in a third-world country, because if they did, they'd already be there.

KEYES: Um, hmm. You see, I think that even the way folks frame the argument--all these people talk in terms of rights and the assertion of rights, and they talk against discrimination, and so forth, and yet, those ideas of rights and a justice that respects the equality, fundamentally, of human beings, they all presume an understanding of our human nature that respects what was put forward in our Declaration of Independence, the authority of nature and nature's God, appealed to as the basis for our claim to rights which must then be respected by government and in the structure of all government, leading to representative legislatures, leading to elections and the right of citizens to participate in those elections, and so forth and so on.

And yet, even as they put forward this doctrine of rights, if you even mention the fact that marriage is a God-ordained institution, they will assault you. Now, I'm sitting here thinking to myself, now, wait a minute. We enjoy God-ordained rights--and that seems to be still argued for and accepted by everyone who are yelling and screaming about their rights--and yet, now they want us to embrace an understanding of marriage that denies the authority of God when it comes to marriage.

I don't know as society whether we can have it both ways. You know, if God gave us our rights, then if we deny that He has any authority, then we don't have to respect the authority from which our rights come--and that means we don't have any, doesn't it?

It seems to me that we are going down a road here that is in utter contradiction of the foundations of our claim to rights and freedom, and if we continue down it, the whole society that is based upon that claim, and all the institutions of our constitutional way of life will fall.

HARDER: Ambassador, all I can say is the radicals that are behind this can be proud of the fact that they are following the tradition of Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, and all of the other radicals that caused the death of over 100,000,000 people since the turn of the century.

KEYES: Well, sadly, I think that a lot of the folks who are involved in this, they haven't thought it through, they probably don't understand its implications.

HARDER: Yeah.

KEYES: The thing I think is most important, though, is that people who are listening who understand the importance of marriage, understand it true foundations--a lot of folks have been intimidated by claims that somehow if you defend the marriage institution you're discriminating, you're bigoted and all of that. That's nonsense. What you're actually doing is defending the integrity of the institution that is the practical basis of individualism and individual courage and freedom in our society, and at the same time, you are respecting the doctrine of rights and liberty which then give rise to our ability to recognize injustices when they are done against people.

So, I think, in point of fact, the folks who have been feeling maybe constrained by this false attack based upon claims of bigotry and all of that, they need to wake up and realize that in fact they are acting on behalf of the doctrine of justice and human rights, and the folks who are promoting the idea of same-sex marriage are the ones who are destroying its very basis in human thought and opinion.

HARDER: Ambassador Alan Keyes, what's going to happen next? We got about a minute.

KEYES: Well, I think that it's very important for folks to get mobilized. There are still measures--there are obviously measures. The Massachusetts legislators could remove the judges who have made this destructive decision, and I think folks ought to be calling on them to do so. They also still have to consider changes in the constitution in Massachusetts that would make explicit the state's recognition of the proper basis for marriage.

And I think these are things that we need to help and support the people in Massachusetts as they struggle with them and struggle to put them into place, and to make sure that their representatives respond to what all the polls and surveys suggest is in fact the will of the people of Massachusetts.

HARDER: Ambassador Alan Keyes, thank you very much. Do you have a website?

KEYES: I have a website RenewAmerica.us, which people can visit and they can get information about what I'm doing in a range of issues.

HARDER: Thank you so much. God bless. RenewAmerica.us. Ambassador Alan Keyes, thank you for a great half hour. Chuck Harder, For the People, Liberty Broadcasting.