There are a lot of “marriage equality” postings on Facebook. I’m in favor of freedom and the constitution. Equality of all things and results is not what the constitution guarantees. I’m not a Constitutional lawyer. I do know that the Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution. I think it should be but we’ve never done that.
So, if we are not guaranteed equality of results in the Constitution, where do we look for it as a controlling rule of life? I don’t. I don’t expect to be able to play in the NBA. I don’t even expect to be chosen as a judge based upon my gender.
So what does this have to do with the “marriage equality” movement? First of all, everyone has the right to marry right now. He or she can marry any person of the opposite sex if he or she is old enough. So we restrict that right in that in this county a 45 year old man cannot marry an 11 year old girl. In some countries that does happen. So the government has this role, to regulate marriage. At present, no one is agitating for the right for a person to marry two people at once. A decision was made over a century ago that this was not good for our culture.
Until the last few years, everyone assumed that only men married women and vice versa. Why the change?
Two people of the same sex can give sexual pleasure to each other. That is no longer a crime in this country. They can enter into contracts which require certain behavior in the event of a split. Even Kansas has held that these contracts are binding. They can name each other in wills. Most corporations allow “domestic partners” to be named as beneficiaries in health and life insurance and on pensions and 401[k]s. These provisions allow both same sex and opposite sex partners to care for the other.
I mentioned that the government had the right to regulate marriage as seen in the approach to child brides and multiple wifes (or husbands). What other role or power does our government have?
We go back to the Constitution at this point. Our government in its founding document gave away a lot of power. One of the huge chunks of power it gave away was in the first amendment. I’ll start with freedom of speech. People are being shouted down if they have reservations about “gay marriage.” They are called bigots, homophobes, hate mongers. They are being fired, marginalized, and generally discriminated against. This is not the American way. In that same amendment, we are promised freedom of religion. My faith says that homosexual sex is morally disordered. I’m not ready to throw out over 2000 years of Church dogma and tradition for the politically correct flavor of the month. I have this right, in the Constitution, to disagree and vocalize about it. My Church has the right to refuse to do same sex commitment ceremonies or “marriages.” But that’s what is coming next because another role of government is to enforce. We are possibly one or two generations away from priests being imprisoned for refusing to marry two women. Do we want that society? So before we all start jumping up and down about how progressive and cool we are, think it through. What is to be gained and what lost by this exercise? Who is being helped and who is being harmed?
I agree. What is to come will not be pretty. Gay activism has always been tied to sexual amorality and sexual exhibitionism all one has to do is look at any gay “pride” parade or the bulk of “gay” events to see this is the case. Also look at what groups like GLSTN are pushing in schools and the gay proms. Its always always about overt sex, obsenity and amorality and they will keep pushing this stuff and while not all gays are like this the ones driving the politics are and those who are their allies see political power to be had over the church and individuals and that is where the harm comes in.
Same Sex Marriage boils down to even greater big government as you pointed out they will be the “enforcers”. They are already shutting down Catholic Adoption Services because of not adopting to gays, they are punishing businesses who wont cater to gay marriages, they are forcing parents to consent to their children being indoctrinated.
Some say this is inevitable. The defeat of the American Colonies was inevitable too. The ultimate dominance of the soviet union was inevitable. After Roe v Wade they said universal support for abortion would be inevitable. Inevitable is another word for “why don’t you conservatives just surrender and make our job easy”.
Isn’t it strange that the issue of traditional marriage which unites one of the most diverse coalitions of hispanics, blacks, and white conservatives is the issue that the GOP wants to go away all to capture the approval of a percentage of homosexuals. In each the blue states that held marriage related referendums the pro marriage side outperformed Mitt Romney considerably and yet these same people who want to give up on marriage would run a Mitt again in a heartbeat. The truth is if there had been parity of funding against those marriage referendums the SSM crowd would likely have lost even as Obama won those states who knows Mitt Romney might have even benefited. Instead we have a GOP that doesn’t have the balls to fight for what it claims to believe. Imagine what a billion dollars in pro traditional marriage pro conservative advertising could accomplish in this nation instead we blew it on someone who didn’t lay a hand on Obama.
Its crazy.
“There are a lot of “marriage equality” postings on Facebook”
Just tell them that it is interesting that they are for polygamy and if they say know call them anti-poly bigot and poly-phobe.