Such changes have occurred throughout history...there and back again.
(hoping that there's no prohibition against posting Sandro Botticelli's Birth of Venus and Peter Paul Rubens' The Three Graces as illustration)
Posted on 05/19/2008 9:44:34 PM PDT by goldstategop
Americans seem mesmerized by the word "change." And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex.
Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.
Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.
And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision -- let alone the four compassionate justices -- acknowledge this. The mantra of the supporters of this sea change in society is that it's no big deal. Hey, it doesn't affect any heterosexuals' marriage, so what's the problem?
This lack of acknowledgment -- or even awareness -- of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones -- and their millions of compassionate supporters -- allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a "right" that had been unfairly denied to gays.
Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.
That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism -- ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side.
Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion -- or to any past wisdom -- for one's values has died. Thus, the modern attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian value system as the basis of America's values, and to disparage the Founders as essentially morally flawed individuals (They allowed slavery, didn't they?). The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.
Which leads to a third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly imposed by four individuals -- the modern supplanting of wisdom with compassion as the supreme guide in forming society's values and laws. Just as for religious fundamentalists, "the Bible says" ends discussion, for liberal fundamentalists, "compassion says" ends discussion.
If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming -- to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.
The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity -- especially females -- can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction -- until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is "heterosexism," a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger -- if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians -- i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture -- will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it -- a man and a woman.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed -- and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists -- the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father -- the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.
And what will happen after divorce -- which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.
We have entered something beyond Huxley's "Brave New World." All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price.
Anticipating reactions to this column -- as to all defenses of man-woman marriage -- that it or its author are "homophobic," i.e., bigoted and unworthy of respectful rejoinder, it is important to reaffirm that nothing written here is implicitly, let alone explicitly, anti-gay. I take it as axiomatic that a gay man or woman is created in God's image and as precious as any other human being. And I readily acknowledge that it is unfair when an adult is not allowed to marry the love of his or her choice. But social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life's unfairness. Thus, we must love the gay person -- and his and or her partner as well. But we must never change the definition of marriage. The price to society and succeeding generations will be too great.
That is why Californians must amend their state's Constitution.
Since the arrival of our twins last year, I have realized that men and woman really are fundamentally different. My husband’s and my approaches to childraising are completely different. And I have come to realize that if our boys had just one of us in the picture, their upbringing would be very different than it is now, and not for the better. Men and women bring different aspects to childrearing. And that is why I don’t think gay marriage is a good thing. Two men or two women raising a child are going to give that kid a very different view of the world and what men and women are like than a man and a woman together would. What you grow up with is what you think is normal. I don’t think that normalizing the “two men” or “two women” model of parenting is a good idea at all. Kids grew up in the past with that model, if say they were orphaned and ended up with a pair of bachelor uncles, or maybe with their mom and a grandmother raising them, but they knew it was not how the majority of the world lived, and nobody tried to tell them it was normal.
And yet, this country was founded upon the principle of the rest of society not imposing itself upon an individual.
It's a shame that government ever got into the marriage business.
Please post the citations supporting that. I'm sure everyone would love to have them in hand for use in this fight.
Can someone tell me when we transitioned from a representative republic governed by a constitution, to a judicial oligarchy?
Such changes have occurred throughout history...there and back again.
(hoping that there's no prohibition against posting Sandro Botticelli's Birth of Venus and Peter Paul Rubens' The Three Graces as illustration)
No, sir. It was what the Marxist had in mind when they set out to destroy it.
More than anyone else, we can thank Pete Wilson, who with a few others recruited Schwarzenegger personally. I had that guy pegged years ago, and he proved me right. He could have backed McClintock. I guess McClintock wasn’t his type of candidate, a Conservative.
RINOs will bit you on the arse every time.
That’s California’s Republican leadership for you.
As for Hanity, he was wrong, but once Schwarzenegger announced, he was going to win by shere popularity and fan base IMO. We were basically stuck with him.
I object to the use of the term “marriage” —> what was wrong with letting them have civil unions?
It’s up to the US Supreme Court and the American People now to stop this runaway train.
IMHO, it started after FDR's attempt to pack Scotus with his acolytes. The court got the message and started to pass his New Deal laws. By the time of his death, seven or eight of the nine justices were his. They found no "equal protection" problems with the progressive income tax.
IIRC, a 1947 decision gutted the plain meaning of interstate commerce clause and opened the floodgates for Congress to pass laws outside the defined powers of the Constitution. Also about this time, public prayer in schools was banned.
Griswold v. Connecticut. 1973 - Roe v. Wade
We are all familiar with recent baloney from the courts.
Instead of acting as a bulwark against the encroachment upon our liberties, the courts have worked hand in hand with the natural inclination of government to assume more powers.
I look forward to posts from those more knowledgeable than me about this subject.
I recall that the late Bill Simon had a falling out with Jerry Parsky. Did the latter have anything to do with the nonsupport of the GOP for the son?
“And I bet everything I own that this was not what the Founders of this country had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.”
It would not have even occurred to them. It would have been considered an absurd joke if anyone had brought it up. In a sense, gay rights activists are playing a semantic game. Because the definition of marriage was not spelled out in the Constitution, the activists feel free to manufacture a right for themselves.
I would say the model to follow would be the one the fuonding fathers took. They spent years and years attempting first to work through the established channels of power before deciding to separate from Britain.
That is the other difference. They did not want the violence. They simply wanted to separate themselves from the British. The violence occurred because the British were not going to allow them to separate. They were not firing the first shots at the first skirmishes (Concord, Lexington etc), the Brits were. They were actually following biblical principles, trying to peacefully get their wrongs addressed with no luck, and finally the only alternative left was to sever ties - not something they had originally wanted to do or have to do. They were justified in fighting because they were being attacked and killed for attempting to separate.
As it stands right now, we are not even close to this. I would say get a punching bag in the meantime.
“People seem to not make a connection that change in and of itself is not inherently good.”
Hillary Clinton has actually made this same point. I will not be voting for her, but I agree with her on this.
“I am not sure that Americans have the stomach to fight for this. I don’t sense the outrage among most people except for on this great site. Day to day people don’t even mention it among those I see. Does anyone else encounter this? It seems to me most don’t care or think it was inevitable anyway.”
You are mentioning people who are not involved in politics. The people who are advocating for same sex marriage are not moderates. In fact, not all homosexuals and lesbians want same sex marriage. Just as the gay rights agenda is being pushed by politically involved (left wing) people, so it needs to be countered by politically involved people with a different political point of view. Apathetic people are not involved in this fight on either side.
“Since the arrival of our twins last year, I have realized that men and woman really are fundamentally different...”
It’s the same when you teach either an all girls or an all boys class. The boys are very active and hands-on. The energy level is high. You need to give them lots of activities to keep them busy. Competition can be a real motivator. The girls, on the other hand, are better behaved and work well in small groups. The atmosphere is quieter and more cooperative.
In a normal family, at a certain age, a boy breaks the link with mom, and begins to associate with the dad other male peers and starts building his own identity as a male. If dad rejects him or abuses him (hard verbal, no praise, no affection, physical abuse) he doesn’t want to be like dad (male) and stays connected to mom and identifies with women. It is more likely to happen if something prevent the boy from bonding with dad AND his peers tease the living crap out of him. It isn’t a guarantee it will happen, but there’s enough research of it to show real correlations between this. With girls, generally there also is an issue with the dad, and maybe the mom, too, and how he relates to the daughter and the mom. Generally she doesn’t ever want to put herself in the position her weaker mom allowed herself to be in. These are the hardcore lesbians who are the more aggressive ‘male’ of the lesbian pair. They want to be in control as the guy.
And it does make sense when you see the general patterns of these people. The men generally hate or have big problems with dad, and wrship their moms. They generally like women, just not in the sexual way. They like women because they identify with them mentally. The lesbians generally hate dad, vary from liking mom to having little respect for her.
And as anecdotal life evidence, so far I have never met a gay guy who didn’t either hate or have big problems with his dad, and loved his mom. The ‘male’ lesbians I have met and known have hated dad, and pretty much didn’t respect their moms much.
With two dads what the heck kind of identity are boys and girls going to develop. With two lesbians what kinds of identities are the boys and girls supposed to develop?
The women in the “Birth of Venus” are not as rail-thin as some models today.
The issue no one seems to be focussing on is the financial impact of the ruling. Follow the money. In California, gay couples will be entitled to such things as survivor benefits for state pensions, other social welfare benefits, etc. One of the reasons DOMA passed in Congress was to prevent the expansion of federal benefits to gay couples for such programs as SS, Medicare, etc.
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.