Why I Reject a Redifinition of Marriage Through Civil Unions or Gay Marriage

Opinion Times ^ | 10/6/04 | Jim Pfaff

[HallowThisGround]

Some of the email and comments I have had to my posting about the debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment has prompted me to define my position, from a libertarian perspective, on defending the current definition of marriage even to the point of a Constitutional Amendment if necessary. Here is my position.

I consider myself a Christian libertarian. I believe that ultimately marriage is an institution ordained and sanctified by God Himself, and not by government institutions. But my governmental ideology on the subject is such that I believe that governments are instituted among men to provide arbitration against what I call "excessive liberty" defined as the collision of two individuals rights in willful disobedience to the Golden Rule and the Law of Nature. When individual rights meet in a violent manner, government must play a role in adjudicating the dispute. This was the dilemma of Moses for which his father-in-law Jethro helped him make a structured system of judges to resolve.

I believe the works of John Locke best explain the origin of governments instituted among men. He believed that the foundation of civil society is found in the voluntary union of Man and Woman through marriage. To quote him in his Second Treatise of Government, "Conjugal Society [the government of marital relationship] is made by a voluntary Compact between Man and Woman: And tho' it consist chiefly in such a Communion and Right in one anothers Bodies, as is necessary to its chief end, Procreation; yet it draws with it mutual Support, and Assistance, and a Communion of Interest too, as necessary not only to unite their Care, and Affection, but also necessary to their common Off-spring, who have a Right to be nourished and maintained by them, till they are able to provide for themselves." He then goes on to mention that Man and Woman have in their natural state been given certain areas of authority which they hold to themselves in a state of nature until relationships with other humans necessitate some form of justice. They therefore cede some of their "Executive" and "Legislative" authority in the Law of Nature to a Civil Society structure which we call government. "Wherever therefore any number of Men are so united into one Society, as to quit every one of his Executive Powers of the Law of Nature, and to resign to the publick, there and there only is a Political, or Civil Society."

Thus Locke starts by laying rights into individuals in their natural state who consequently adjust their individual liberty into "Conjugal Society" through marriage. Then, as dictated by necessity, man and woman cede some of their authority in the family to Civil Society through representatives appointed by them who make laws and administer justice on their behalf.

Individual rights to traditional marriage responsibilities to the representative structure of Civil Society. Governments take their origin from the traditional family in Locke's eyes. And I agree with his assessment

That is why I am against a redefinition of marriage and also why my libertarian instincts are not offended by this position. Break down the family and you break down the whole structure and origin of Government.

[HallowThisGround]

On the other hand, the high rate of divorce and couples living together unmarried have actually been the most significant factor in the alteration of traditional marriage. Maybe all this hoopala about gay marriages keeps us from missing the real changes in our society.
This is a chicken and egg argument you are making. Did divorce redefine marriage or did a redefinition of marriage cause an increase in divorce.
I propose the latter which was precipitated by an acceptance of an expanded list of genders proposed by the "women's" movement of the 60's and 70's. And that is the origin of the "intellectual" debate we are having on gay marriage today.

[HallowThisGround]

That's why an Amendment that at least bars the judiciary from getting involved would be a solid victory. It would then mean that any change would risk incurring the wrath of voters.

And this must be done simply with a marriage amendment. Have a simple definition "matrimonial union between one man and one woman only." and leave the rest--age, determinations of the definition of 'justice-of-the-peace', et al--to the states.

I believe most of the postings are missing the points of the article which are these: "Is marriage the foundation of a free society? Does the concept of the transition from marriage to representative government postulated by Locke provide natural restrictions upon the government and security of liberty?"

I would be interested in a response to these questions.

[gcruse]

"excessive liberty" defined as the collision of two individuals rights in willful disobedience to the Golden Rule and the Law of Nature

The Golden Rule, if anything, says homosexuality is doing what you want done to you,  so it does not make your case.
The Law of Nature involves doing no harm to others, so homosexuality does not apply here, either.  Any other 'Law' is
an attempt to dictate what free individuals may consent to do with each other.  That's Christian, but not libertarian.
Your 'libertarian' credentials are as strained as a bungee cord returning Michael Moore from a leap off Half Dome.

[Susannah]

You're somewhat new to freerepublic. I suggest you click on the keyword "homosexualagenda" below the article and try to catch up on what you've missed.

Homosexuals and their supporters/sympathizers have deep pockets and wield a lot of influence. They see their cause as a civil rights issue, but it's something that will forever change society. Haven't you noticed that tv shows, movies are making this appear to be a normal lifestyle?

I don't know where you live, but here in California public schools can lose federal and state funds for not including teaching "sexual orientation" and let children decide what gender they are. Most of these same schools would send a child home for wearing a religious symbol unless it is part of the Islamic religion.

I'm in a lower middle class neighborhood and there are couples working more than one job to keep their children in private schools so they can get a basic education without having to be politically indoctrinated.

A Pediatricians study found that nearly 25% of children aged 12 were not sure what gender they were. I would suspect the numbers are even higher in California and other states that have included homosexual/transgender teaching in schools beginning in first grade.

So far, 8 states have received a "passing grade" from a homosexual advocacy group for their teachings/laws in schools.....see how your state did:
sex in the schools: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1190682/posts

[scripter]

That's quite a list when it's compiled and stored in one place. Thanks.

[scripter]

I have the answer............. Because we keep talking about them. Just ignore them and let them battle with the politicians

We didn't bring the subject up - it's the homosexuals who keep this issue in the headlines. We just present the truth. And we can't ignore the homosexual agenda in the schools - for on this issue we have to stay on the offensive.

[Susannah]

I spent some time in the http://www.freedominion.ca forum (Canadian equivalent of freerepublic) and noticed there are some Christians who are trying to gather to protest their loss of religious freedoms. Some were discussing getting other religions to join them and even risk getting jailed to make their point to the government.

I found the following article posted at the Canadian forum:
http://ignatiusinsight.com/features/mobrien_thoughtcrime_sept04.asp
(hate speech laws in Canada, Spain, Sweden and other countries are causing preachers to be jailed)

[Susannah]

I think you've oversimplified the Law of Nature

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Law%20of%20nature

The Golden Rule says: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The way you're applying it to homosexuals is somewhat understandable, but you must consider the consequences of warped minds that would do something to another because they would want it done to them.

[Susannah]

Christian and Libertarian just don't go together unless you ascribe to the "liberal theology".

There's very little that I agree with on the current Libertarian Party presidential candidate (Badnarik). It's a real mixed bag of agenda.

http://badnarik.org/plans.php

[Aetius]

I agree that marriage -- man and woman -- is one of the foundations of a successful society. I agree that going away from this will be disastrous for the Western World over the long run.

I agree with you that this common sense definition of marriage SHOULD prevail throughout the nation. I wish the Marriage Amendment had passed Congress and was on its way to the states.

But I am merely looking at it from a cold, political perspective. You know, the majority of Californians voted to ban gay marriage in their state, yet they will not vote out Boxer and Feinstein. Louisianans overwhelmingly voted to ban gay marriage and civil unions, but Mary Landrieu felt perfectly safe in voting against the Federal Amendment. Etc, etc, etc.

I am worried that there simply isn't the will to pass the Amendment as it is currently stated. So I am suggesting that our side instead try and hold what we have, and call the bluff of all these 'gay marriage-no, Amendment-no, let the states decide-yes' types and put forth an Amendment that reflects what they claim to believe.

I think it would have a better chance at becoming law. Yes, it would mean that several states would eventually go for gay marriage, and that several more would at least go for civil unions. But it would also mean that the majority of states would be free to reject any legal recognition of same-sex unions, and not have it force on them by the Sup Court or their own state court.

Yes, this would be a strategic retreat, but sometimes it makes sense if it helps you hold own to what you already have. Just as Hadrian relinquished Trajan's conquests in Mesopotamia, and just as Augustus gave up Germany, so to should we consider giving up the Northeast and Pacific Coast.

[radicalamericannationalist]

"They can get this done now, but it's a huge legal hassle."

Not true. You can buy fill out forms for wills in any stationary shop. This is just a fig leaf argument for civil unions which are themselves the backdoor to destroying traditional marriage and families.

[radicalamericannationalist]

"It's definitely a fight I don't care to fight.
I just think by us fighting it, some how, some way, we are the ones that keep the discussion going. I really don't think the politicians would vote for it if we make it a non issue for discussion.
I could be wrong!"

You are.

[johnnyb_61820]

But it's not just wills. It's also things like power of attorney under certatin circumstances, the ability to see each other in the hospital as if they were family, and other things.

[radicalamericannationalist]

1. Power of attorneys are also available in the same stores with the wills.

2. I have never heard of a hospital having a "list," like a club. If this is really a problem, solve it by allowing the power of attorney to include visitors.

In the end, the civil union is simply a smoke screen.

[little jeremiah]

You said:

"Just ignore them and let them battle with the politicians."

The very reason the "gay" agenda pushers have acheived the tremendous power over the past generation is precisely because we - who should have known better - have ignored them. Either you are not informed, or worse.

If the homosexual radicals are to be resisted, it must be with courage, determination, and truth. Ignoring them allows them to infiltrated, threaten, legislate from the bench, and indoctrinate OUR children.

Enemies of freedom and truth should never be ignored, they should be conquered and destroyed - rendered powerless. In this case, put back in the closet.

[lyingisbetter]

"The very reason the "gay" agenda pushers have acheived the tremendous power over the past generation is precisely because we - who should have known better - have ignored them. Either you are not informed, or worse."

Sorry, I'm not really informed.
Those people don't really affect my life.
Some are good and some are bad. I hate putting a group
in one category. It's just not worth fighting! (for me)

[little jeremiah]

You hate putting a group in one category. Did you ever learn critical thinking?

I hate putting murderers in one category.

I hate putting child molesters on one category.

I hate putting all adulterers in one category.

I hate putting all Democrats in one category.

Do these statements make sense?

Homosexuals aren't really a "group" - it's a behavior. It's rational to put people who all act a certain way into a "category" of people who share the same behavior - in this case, the category of people who commit same sex sodomy; have a higher rate of promiscuity, a higher rate of child/youth molestation, and generally promote same.

You might not directly be touched by the "gay" rights agenda pushers, but millions of children are. I care about them. Don't you?

If you don't know much about what homosexuals actually do, what their plans have been and are, how they indoctrinate children and force acceptance and glorification of the "gay" life on others - there's no better place than FR to study up.

Check Scripter's and other freepers' links. You could read for days. Nothing like knowledge to light up the darkness.

[Miss Independent]

Do you consider yourself to be a Christian first or a individual first and if you see yourself as a man of faith first then in my opinion I feel that it would be difficult for you to look beyond your faith and see the greater issue, which is the issue of civil rights and not the issue of what the American public feels. I've often heard people say that majority should rule and history has taught us that majority should never rule, only the constitution should be the deciding factor, because that is precisely what it is there for.In the 1950s most Americans who according to polls were against Blacks having equal rights and in the 70s many were against interracial marriage, despite the fact that it was still a man and a woman.I'm not going to compare interracial marriage to that of homosexuality, because there is no real comparison other than the fact that the public's opinion was considered over the Constiution.It's not that the Constitution doesn't say that all people should be equal and that there should be a separation of Church and state it's just that America has never really lived up to those promises primarily due to racial and religious biases and prejudices, which is why Slavery existed and why Blacks as well as Women and other Minorities had to fight for their rights in the first place even though the Constitution made it clear that they were entitled to them. The question that we have to decide for ourselves is if we are going to follow the law and the constitution or just public opinion, which more than likely is prone to bias and prejudice.

24, Female, Straight, Biracial, Europe, Jewish Faith