Posted on 02/27/2004 2:30:26 PM PST by JohnHuang2
'Gay marriage' is not about 'rights'
© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Proponents of traditional values are making a tactical error in allowing the homosexual lobby to frame the issue of same-sex marriage merely as one of equal rights for gays. Much more is at stake.
Let me raise a few questions. Do you believe that marriage is properly an institution between a man and a woman? Do you believe marriage, so defined, is an indispensable building block of our society? If you answered yes to these questions, do you believe that there is something wrong with you for wanting to preserve an institution that you believe is essential for society? Are you a homophobe? Are you full of hate?
The gay lobby, in its tireless determination, has succeeded in framing the same-sex marriage issue as one of equal rights instead of the right of a society to preserve its foundational institutions. They have painted those who nobly want to preserve these institutions as hateful, homophobic bigots.
But opposition to same-sex marriage not about "rights," and it's not about hate or bigotry. No one is preventing homosexuals from living with one another. All homosexuals have a "right" to get married and to have that marriage sanctioned by the state. But in order to do that they must marry someone of the opposite sex – that's what marriage means and has always meant. When they insist that society be forced to redefine marriage to sanction same-sex unions, they are attempting to establish new and special rights.
What's worse is that if we view this from the narrow perspective of "gay rights," we are overlooking that these "rights" will not be created in a vacuum, without consequences to our society. It's not as simple as saying that homosexuals will have the right to live together and receive the "legal incidents" of marriage.
If they coerce society into placing its imprimatur on same-sex marriage, they will have eroded one of the fundamental supports of our society. But in our postmodern licentious, amoral culture, we are so hung up on radical individualism, we no longer seem to comprehend that society has a vital interest in establishing rules grounded in morality and enforced by law.
This is the larger issue underlying the marriage turf battle. Does our society even have a mandate anymore to base its laws on moral absolutes? Or does our myopic zeal for pluralism, "tolerance," "multiculturalism," "secularism" and moral relativism require that we abandon the moral pillars upon which our system is built?
I know it is chic to subscribe to the mindless notion that we can't legislate morality or that we can't even base our laws on our moral and religious beliefs, but that thinking is as destructive as it is nonsensical. We have always based our laws on our moral beliefs and must continue to for them to have any legitimacy.
It is completely possible to base a nation's constitutional system on specific religious beliefs and simultaneously guarantee the rights of its citizens to exercise other religious beliefs. That's precisely what our predominantly Christian Framers did. They built a system on Judeo-Christian roots, which they believed would guarantee, not threaten, political and religious freedom. America's history conclusively vindicates them.
They designed a governmental system grounded in the laws of nature established by the God they believe created them in His image and Who was therefore the source of their inalienable rights. A society so founded has an interest in preserving the moral foundation established by this God and observing His laws of nature. And the protection of this interest is wholly consistent with, indeed essential to, guaranteeing an ordered society with maximum political and religious liberties.
We are so spoiled with our freedoms that we never stop to think that they are based on a moral foundation, which, if uprooted, will uproot our liberties as well. You don't have to be an ardent churchgoer to grasp that we cannot continue in our rebellious and narcissistic quest for unrestrained liberty with impunity. If we persist in demanding freedom without responsibility; if we recklessly reject self-control and moral parameters; if we defy the laws of nature established by an omniscient God, we can expect chaos and the eventual erosion of liberty.
It is chilling that those who want to preserve our unique system and the unparalleled freedom it guarantees are viewed as a threat to that freedom, when, in fact, they are its sacred guardians.
Why? Why should the State do more in civil contracts than make sure they are enforeced? If we are to say that anyone can "marry" anyone, why should the state put all the numerous restrictions and obligations on third parties that are not parties to the contract?
You are just stating a position when you state that "marraige is legally a state matter". For many, many years it was not. No marriage licenses were sold in many states before 1900. I am positing a position that marraige should not be a "state matter".
Please explain why marraige should be a "state matter" and if so, why should not the state restrict it?
The reason for the state's continued involvement, i.e. the civil institution of marriage, is still the same. The state has a compelling interest in maximizing the number of children being raised with both a mother and a father who are married. The state does not have much of a compelling interest in gay couples staying together who in any case do not have as many children proportionately, and also are generally inferior parents, simply for not having both genders represented.
That is a good question.
Marriage is truly a personal matter between parties that religious and civil authorities have -- over the course of time -- regulated, with consequent problems such as those presented in the gay marriage question.
I'd say that a secular state dedicated to individual freedom is a best-case power, if any power is necessary, for protection of individual rights in marriage situations.
You're still confusing the implicit causality with the explicit social codes. So here's a concrete example: Kosher rules exclude eating pig meat. We all know why now - Trichinosis. But it probably took the Israelite tribes 500 years of observation to come up with the axiom: don't eat pig meat, because you might end up dead. And so the leaders of the tribes - the Priests - made a rule, that they buttressed by saying "this is rule of God". Lacking a physical explanation, that was the best they could do.
But again, in what way is this "mysticism" as opposed to objective empiricism? You could just as reasonably say that indeed, God doesn't want you to eat uncooked piggies. The fact that the world actually is so constructed is easily ascribed to a deity - and science cannot and would not oppose that, because ultimate causality is outside of its charter.
There are legitimate contradictions between science and religion - the age of the earth, evolution, blah blah. But in many cases, those are controversies within the "faiths" themselves. In the end, anyone can see that much of religion is empirical itself, and that its conclusions regarding social behavior are based on experience and history, and not merely the ad hoc assertions of the local soothsayer - your "mystical" component.
Where the two approaches diverge is this: science has no opinion on ultimate causality, and would not posit one, absent a lack of a method of proof. Religion does, and posits a "faith" that such causality has been revealed through persons and history. It's as good an explanation as any. But the social systems so buttressed have, in the Judaeo-Christian case, borne out as successful. Might be a good "proof" that they really were the "laws of nature's god".
Neither you, nor I, or all the scientists and engineers I have known and worked with could say one way or the other.
Love has nothing to do with rights, and is independent of contracts. The use of love as a basis for State action is as arbitrary as the use of race, religion, compassion, gender, or any other majoritarian idea one might name. Such a vision of the proper function of the State is incompatible with the concept of impersonal justice. To the extent that it's allowed to penetrate political thought, it will displace objective thought about rights, justice, and the role of the State.Very aptly put.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.