l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 By: Ulysses Arn (Diary) | March 28th, 2013 at 05:52 PM |
It has been interesting to hear the arguments being made in support of same
sex marriage these last few days as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments
concerning California’s proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage
Act(DOMA). There has been a social media campaign on this subject with
supporters of redefining the word marriage changing their profile pictures
to an equal sign or the words “marriage equality”. Protest have taken
place both at state capitols and outside the Supreme Court. The media, from
CNN to the major network newscasts and pages of the dying newspapers like
the New York Times, have trumpeted same sex marriage as the new civil rights
movement. In all of the promotion of same sex marriage one thing has been
constant, from the court room to the carbon footprint that is MSNBC,
marriage is a right and it is unconstitutional, bigoted, and outright wrong
to deny the right to marry to homosexual couples.
That thinking, that logic is extremely flawed. Marriage, whether for
heterosexuals or homosexuals, isn’t a right. Marriage is an institution
that society, culture, and tradition have developed over the course of
thousands of years to ensure 1) the continuation of the human race and 2)
the healthy growth and development of that society/culture.
This notion that same sex or gay marriage is a right has cropped up because
of the dumbing down of the population as a whole as to what rights actually
are and where they come from. You can blame 60+ years of liberal
indoctrination in the public and university education system, the liberally
biased media, and a lack of attention and awareness on the part of the
American people for that.
Rights, broadly defined, cannot be granted by a government or bestowed by an
individual(even if they wear a black robe). Rights, are either inherently
natural(natural right) or divinely granted they cannot come from any other
source. Governments are not created to create new rights for people, as the
Soviet Constitution did granting people rights to things like work, housing
, vacations, etc. Governments are created to protect and promote the rights
the people already had before government was ever created. Make no mistake
about it the wish of the same sex marriage proponents is for the government
, in this case the courts, to create out of whole cloth a right that simply
doesn’t exist, for anyone.
Now unlike certain Libertarians who believe government should have no role
whatsoever in marriage, I believe government does have a part to play in the
institution of marriage. The governments role in marriage is only to
ensure that 1) marriages are consensual 2) comport to societal standards,
customs, and norms 3) promote and benefit a healthy and prosperous society/
culture. That is it.
The same sex marriage crowd, which sadly includes way to many people under
the age of 30, doesn’t want to hear any of that. They don’t want to
listen to the reasoning behind why their right to marry argument is
fundamentally flawed. They don’t want to hear about how their same
arguments in favor of same sex marriage can and will be used by polygamist,
bestiality orientated people, and pedophiles to further erode the meaning of
the word marriage to encompass their deviant behavior. They don’t want to
hear the historical fact that marriage has been defined in the Western and
Judeo-Christian world has always been defined as being a union between one
man and one woman. They probably don’t want to be reminded of the fact
that this same sex or gay marriage movement isn’t even 25 years old. Or
that no major religion condones the practice. And they most certainly don’
t want to be reminded of the fact that nearly every time the subject comes
to a vote of the people it is defeated. Some 30 states have either enacted
laws or amended their state Constitutions to ensure that marriage in that
state is defined as being between one man and one woman.
There is a train of thought among the supporters of same sex marriage that
such outcomes and results are due to discrimination. How so? No state in
this nation nor the federal government prohibits homosexuals from having a
relationship with a partner of their choice, so long as age of consent laws
are observed. In their legal arguments gay marriage proponents often talk
about wanting their partner to have things like power of attorney,
inheritance, medical decision making, etc. All of those things a gay or
lesbian couple can obtain via wills and other legal documents and procedures
just like heterosexual couples can. So there is no discrimination or
denial of equal protection of the law. All that same sex couples can’t do
is call their relationship a marriage in nearly every state(those states
that do allow same sex marriages have done so via Judicial fiat and activism
).
That gets to the nub of the matter the same sex marriage crowd and their
supporters in the political class and media don’t like that they can’t
call their same sex relationship a marriage. So to pacify their discomfort
at not being able to call their relationship a marriage they seek to have
the courts(and liberal politicians of both parties) change the meaning of a
word. I am sorry, but just like one person cannot create a right out of
thin air, one also can’t simply change the meaning of a word because they
disagree with it or want it to mean something else.
Hopefully the majority opinion of the Supreme Court will reflect these
truths and uphold California’s proposition 8 as being a duly and lawfully
passed Constitutional Amendment to the California Constitution and that DOMA
is a Constitutional law which ensures and protects federalism and the 10th
Amendment. If nothing else the court should at the least(or most) throw out
both cases before it on standing and say nothing about the matter of
marriage. |
|
