‘Same sex’ marriage in Massachusetts just the beginning

Citizen ^ | May 20, 2004 | Cal Thomas

[Don Joe]

How long before pairs of male criminals see the advantage to being "married" so they can't be forced to testify against each other?

I suspect we'll see something far costlier to society (in the monetary sense of the term) before we see that -- and in much larger numbers, in any case.

In other words, how long will it be before two male friends -- one employed in a job that offers excellent health insurance benefits -- and the other unemployed, or "underemployed", and dealt a very expensive longerm disease...

How long will it be before these two friends realize that for the cost of a "marriage" license, the one can provide "free" health coverage to the other?

After all, they're not conducting "means testing" for homosexual "marriages", are they? Sorry for the revolting word picture, but it's necessary to bring home the point namely, that homosexual "marriage" is in reality "same-sex" "marriage".

Expect to see your health coverage go down, as the premiums go up.

[Don Joe]

The same arguments that homosexuals have used to justify allowing same-sex marriages can now be used by polygamists to justify polygamous marriages. Homosexuals claim that it is discriminatory to not allow homosexuals to marry, and that it is wrong to prevent people who love each other and commit themselves to each other from marrying. I can very easily imagine these very same words coming out of the mouth of polygamists as they argue their case in the courts and in front of the media. As far as making the argument that the tradition of marriage should be only between two people, for thousands of years the tradition of marriage had only been between a man and a women. I would hate to see polygamous marriages become legal, just as I hate to see same-sex marriages become legal. But once you give one special interest group a certain right or privilege, it will be difficult to keep other special interest groups from demanding that same right or privilege.

Now that the can of worms has been opened, here's another l'il sumpthin' no one's considered:

Will "the authorities" arrest and prosecute a member of a "married" homosexual couple for "polygamy" if a third homosexual joins the "marriage"?

If not, WHY not?

And if so, which "married" member will they arrest? And why will they arrest that one rather than another member?

Face it -- they won't go after "married" homosexuals for polygamy, or for anything else. And they likely won't be pushing any heterosexual polygamy prosecutions either, because they won't want to open that can of words either. So, as I said, face it. Face the fact that marriage has been for all intents and purposes ended as anything but a legal term of art, used to obtain legally mandated "benefits".

The only downside to "marriage" (now in scare-quotes due to its being rendered meaningless insofar as its traditional definition is concerned) will be to traditional (i.e., normal) families, and mainly to heterosexual fathers -- when they divorce.

Sad to say, but from this point forth, the smart money's on the shaking-up option. "Marriage" will be something entered into by those who need the "free" health insurance, housing, or other financial benefit.

The big question will be how long it takes the churches to rent the clue, and begin offering "eccesiastical marriage licenses" (or whatever they want to term them) that serve to santify a marriage between a husband and wife, with no claim to the "state-sponsored" travesty formerly known as "marriage."

If they do it right, they may very well be able to pull it off, after a period of testing of the wills.

How long did it take for the state to accept the equivalent, in the education venue? I'm talking about home schooling. At first, home schoolers were considered outlaws. Now, they're mainstream. And their kids receive essentially the same benefits (for what they're worth) as those subjected to state-sponsored "education."

In other words, I see no reason why churches (and synagogues, etc.) cannot likewise demand that recipients of their marriage decrees receive the same nondiscriminatory treatment as that received by participants in the state-sponsored "education" and "marriage" shams.

[Don Joe]

Can you say, Rene Richards?

There's also that bicyclist, who, since becoming a gelding (in his case, due to surgical necessity), has been doing quite well in his sport of choice.

[Don Joe]

I live in MASS, and had the issue of homosexual marriage been put to a vote, it would have been defeated soundly.

Welcome to the world of leftist realpolitick.

When you can persuade "the masses" to go along with your agenda -- however horrific it may be -- demand "democracy" and plead "the will of the people!"

The rest of the time, use the judiciary to overrule "the will of the people," and demand "justice for all" and that "the rights of the minority" not be trampled.

[Don Joe]

I believe that was already tabled. (public outcry) It keeps circulating like an urban legend.

Oh, don't be so impatient. Give it time. The same thing (tabled due to public outcry) happened with "Know Your Customer" and "Total Information Awareness", and like the proverbial bad nickel...

[LonghornFreeper]

Ok, you got me, who is Rene Richards?

[ThomasMore]

Thanks for the thread, NYer. I love Cal Thomas. Excellant writer.

[reagandemocrat]

In the 1970's Rene Richards was a doctor and a fairly competent male tennis player who underwent a sex change operation and began playing the ladies' circuit. He began winning, and after he won a major tournament, the Women's Tennis Association barred him from the circuit.

Later, he took Martina Navritilova under his hairy armpit and turned her lesbian. He also inducted Martina into the Women's Tennis Hall of Fame.

[k2blader]

I'm seriously just trying to grasp the concept and work out some of its logical conclusions.

Because if one is saying "Contraception is immoral and should never be used" it seems that would apply to married couples *as well as* unmarried couples, folks indulging in "one-nighters", prostitutes, rapists, etc. How would that better our culture?

Also, if no one used birth control it would doubtless bring about a radical change in our society that would require our nation to undergo huge adjustments: Very very few women would make up our work force. The vast majority would be home with their babies (and likely expecting many more).

Re. your questions:

Abortion is always wrong. That is not an alternative.

But why should taxpayers financially support the children of those who can't afford them in the first place?

"Who decides?", indeed.

[Askel5]

I'm seriously just trying to grasp the concept and work out some of its logical conclusions.

Because if one is saying "Contraception is immoral and should never be used" it seems that would apply to married couples *as well as* unmarried couples, folks indulging in "one-nighters", prostitutes, rapists, etc. How would that better our culture?

Folks might think twice about the rampant one-nighters, legalization of prostitution and the relationship of the Sexual Revolution to the incident of rape and decide that perhaps this "liberation" is actually an oppression which inflicts misery and death as it breaks up families, saddles the young with lifelong damaging sexual encounters which -- in addition to warping them emotionally -- often serve to infect them ever after with a host of STDs, many of which are fatal?

I think you first need to make the argument that "consequence free" prostitution, one-night stands and rape are "good" for society or that the birth control which rendered sex "consequence free" in the first place has no bearing whatsoever on the incidence of one-nighters, prostitution and rape.

Also, if no one used birth control it would doubtless bring about a radical change in our society that would require our nation to undergo huge adjustments:

Do you understand the FACT that the government sought to sanction birth control specifically to bring about a radical change in our society?

I'm just curious. No wish to bury you in linkage at the moment but I want to be certain you're clear on the FACT that artificial contraception is something that wouldh ave been forced on the population had they not been "educated" into demanding it as a "right".

Very very few women would make up our work force. The vast majority would be home with their babies (and likely expecting many more).

What's the problem with that? Women not only have ruined the workplace but they've turned out some spectacularly ill-mannered and uneducated children whose own unbridled sex and disordered breeding is likely due to the fact they've a Television Attention Span and their obsession with Entertainment is exceeded only by their sense of Entitlement and Self-Esteem.

Re. your questions:
Abortion is always wrong. That is not an alternative.
But why should taxpayers financially support the children of those who can't afford them in the first place?

I didn't say they should. This may be appropriate at the community or state level (by operation of the principle of Subsidiarity) but I do not believe in the federal Welfare State.

I'm confident that if the State held the Family primarily responsible for carrying the burden of their unwed daughters, the wild-oats of their sons and the well-being of their grandchildren, we'd see a lot fewer single mothers or men with a string of children by different women, none of whom they support ... regardless the State's using the Sexual Revolution to track the pocketbooks of sperm donors like dogs.

Would that mean there would be no more homeless, indigent, human cast-offs. Nope. But I'm confident that (particularly if you include the numbers of Unwanted and Unplanned children either aborted and/or prevented), we'll see a hell of a lot fewer of these sad unfortunates than we do now. They'll either die off or those best suited to effecting metanoia (the truly charitable souls who choose to minister to these people) will take care of as many as they can.

I don't think the State's plan for Preventing, Killing and/or Maintaining those unwanted who slip through the gauntlet of birth control and abortion is working well at all. Probably because it -- like any Utopian System -- is based on the utterly artificial.

"Who decides?", indeed.

Every man who resists the urge to treat himself like a Thing still make all sorts of decisions. Where you've accustomed a population to being manipulated like dairy cattle or domestic animals, you can't exactly pretend they're exercising "Choice" just because the State and their phalanx of behavioral psychologists have served to sweep gate the cattle the one way.

[k2blader]

Such a lengthy and interesting post deserves a more sufficient reply than I can muster right now. Hope you don't mind me getting back to you later this weekend. :-)

[Jorge]

This country deserves same sex marriage for kicking God out.

Just the fact that it is even being debated shows how far we've gotten from God.
Since we've turned our backs on God, it is no surprise He would leave us to our own self destructive devices. Sad.

But there is good news.
This was all predicted in the Bible and Christ will be returning soon.

[k2blader]

Folks might think twice about the rampant one-nighters, legalization of prostitution and the relationship of the Sexual Revolution to the incident of rape and decide that perhaps this "liberation" is actually an oppression which inflicts misery and death as it breaks up families, saddles the young with lifelong damaging sexual encounters which -- in addition to warping them emotionally -- often serve to infect them ever after with a host of STDs, many of which are fatal?

Wise people understand such things are definitely more oppressive than liberating. But I'm afraid there are too many foolish people out there seeking instant gratification and ignoring the long-term consequences. I'm not convinced that removing birth control from the picture would result in these people making better choices--they are too far steeped in the "if it feels good, do it" mentality brought about by the "sexual revolution".

I think you first need to make the argument that "consequence free" prostitution, one-night stands and rape are "good" for society

I can't make that one--they aren't!

or that the birth control which rendered sex "consequence free" in the first place has no bearing whatsoever on the incidence of one-nighters, prostitution and rape.

What I was trying to allude to was that the problem is *much* bigger than birth control. Birth control may make it easier for immoral people to pursue one-nighters, prostitution and rape, but it is not the *reason* people pursue one-nighters, prostitution and rape. Or in other words: Not all people who use birth control pursue one-nighters, prostitution and rape; thus, birth control is not the causative factor behind such behavior.

[more to follow later...]

[biblewonk]

But there is good news. This was all predicted in the Bible and Christ will be returning soon.

So true, infact, a Christian almost gets a little excited watching things that make us start thinking end times and rapture.

[newgeezer]

a Christian almost gets a little excited watching things that make us start thinking end times and rapture.

Albeit selfishly, I'm hopeful.

[k2blader]

(continuing on...)

Do you understand the FACT that the government sought to sanction birth control specifically to bring about a radical change in our society?

I'm just curious. No wish to bury you in linkage at the moment but I want to be certain you're clear on the FACT that artificial contraception is something that wouldh ave been forced on the population had they not been "educated" into demanding it as a "right".

Actually I didn't realize this. Links would be appreciated!

What's the problem with that? Women not only have ruined the workplace but they've turned out some spectacularly ill-mannered and uneducated children whose own unbridled sex and disordered breeding is likely due to the fact they've a Television Attention Span and their obsession with Entertainment is exceeded only by their sense of Entitlement and Self-Esteem.

How have you "ruined the workplace"??

Also, some mothers *and* fathers haven't raised their children very well, but others have. I do think moms should stay home to care for their babies and children--it's best for all involved. If taxes were much less burdensome more moms would be able to do that.

I didn't say they should. This may be appropriate at the community or state level (by operation of the principle of Subsidiarity) but I do not believe in the federal Welfare State.

If by "community" you mean one's own family or charity or churches, that would be appropriate. I oppose state level welfare--forced socialism is wrong. Not sure what you mean by "Subsidiarity".

I'm confident that if the State held the Family primarily responsible for carrying the burden of their unwed daughters, the wild-oats of their sons and the well-being of their grandchildren, we'd see a lot fewer single mothers or men with a string of children by different women, none of whom they support ...

How would the State do that, exactly?

Every man who resists the urge to treat himself like a Thing still make all sorts of decisions. Where you've accustomed a population to being manipulated like dairy cattle or domestic animals, you can't exactly pretend they're exercising "Choice" just because the State and their phalanx of behavioral psychologists have served to sweep gate the cattle the one way.

We are forced to follow certain laws the State has decreed. But in America, a representative republic, the State is We the People. Whatever ill has come down through political pipes, the electorate is to blame. We have allowed it by not strongly resisting it from the start and then growing apathetic and cynical.

Our freedom comes from Christ. That's what I'm holding onto these days.

[Defender2]

It's not Massachusetts anymore!!!! It's now known as cr*pachussetts now!!!!

[Askel5]

=== Our freedom comes from Christ. That's what I'm holding onto these days.


Always.

Thanks for coming back and finishing up. I'll read them together tomorrow.

All the best, K2blader.