Posted on 05/30/2008 4:43:37 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
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.
Read the full column at: Gay Marriage
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
Yes, but that’s slow. I want it done in a Hillary NY minute.
IBTZ
Quick question: If the marriage amendment passes in November, will the marriage license forms revert back to the traditional wording, or will the time and money to reprint be the excuse of the left to keep the ground won in hopes that they will have another chance at battle?
In regards to November’s marriage amendment do you really think that most citizens want the government to limit liberty? I think the chances of the marriage amendment being approved by the public is somewhere between slim & none, the only way this could ever become law is by decree.
The discussion about interracial marriage occurred in the 1960s, when it was automatically assumed that marriage involved a man and a woman. Men and women can naturally produce children, so the basic rules of marriage were not changed by this. Marriage, in fact, was truly expanded by allowing people of different races to marry.
Marriage is supposed to to be an exclusive institution. You can’t marry someone who is underage. You can’t marry a close relative and you must marry a person of the opposite sex. These rules developed in the interest of allowing society to continue through the next generation of people.
Underage children cannot reproduce and even if older ones can, it is not in our interest for them to do so. How successful can children be in raising children? We have a bit of that in the inner city, and it’s best that people wait a little before they have their own children.
You can’t marry a close relative because of possible genetic problems in the children.
And finally, you marry a person of the opposite sex, because we don’t want to disconnect marriage from procreation. Disconnecting marriage from procreation altogether turns marriage into an institution which revolves around the self-esteem and desires of adults. Children become merely a by-product. Maybe they’re there and maybe they’re not, but it doesn’t matter because marriage will be for and about adults, and children will definitely know this.
Let’s say two lesbians have a boy. The boy eventually learns that he was produced from a sperm and an egg. He learns that his genetic father apparently did not want anything to do with him, and that his mothers disconnected him from half of his relatives for the sake of themselves. Where does that put him in terms of importance?
Do you really believe that the sexes are not different except for obvious physical differences? I’m amazed that this feminist theory has gained any traction because it contradicts experience. Very small boys and girls are different. Parents and teachers know this. If the hypothetical boy’s lesbian mothers divorce and remarry, he’ll then have four mothers and no father. Try telling an inner city minister or teacher that boys don’t need fathers.
We need to get off the subject of civil rights. People will always be producing children. In a highly imperfect world, marriage developed as the most stable way to channel the energies of adults into providing for their offspring and thereby contributing to the stability and vitality of society.
The subject needs to shift from civil rights to civil responsibilities.
Of course your position appears to be logical, the thing I would ask in response is that do you think that restricting the marriage contract will in any way change personal relationships.
In other words, is it your belief that if gays are prohibited from the legal benefits gained through marriage this fact will somehow be translated as a wake up call to abandon their homosexual lifestyle?
I think we both know the answer is that people will continue to be people and interact with each other as they always have, there is nothing new about homosexuality, it has been with since the inception of humans and will remain with our species forever.
So, if I am correct in my assessment, your position regarding restricting marriage simply becomes an act of punishment for a lifestyle between consenting adults that you deem inappropriate without any accompanying social benefit.
“So, if I am correct in my assessment, your position regarding restricting marriage simply becomes an act of punishment for a lifestyle between consenting adults that you deem inappropriate without any accompanying social benefit.”
How is a lack of marriage a punishment? A lot of people think that divorce is a punishment, and we will surely see divorce among same sex couples if they are allowed to marry.
The State of California already awards all of the benefits of marriage to same sex couples but thus far has not called it marriage. I think that same sex couples have the best of both worlds - the financial and legal benefits of marriage without the stress and strain of divorce.
There are radicals who wish to marry in order to deconstruct marriage. In other words, they want to marry in order to subvert an institution that they think keeps them down. Why? When will these people be happy? We don’t yet know the full ramifications of deconstructing traditional marriage, but children need boundaries and security, not adult experimentation. Do your experimentation outside of marriage if that is what you want.
Perhaps you connect a lack of marriage with self-esteem issues, but the law is not responsible for self-esteem. Homosexuals and lesbians have distinguished themselves in the arts especially but in other careers as well; they just don’t belong in marriage because they do not naturally reproduce. When they do have children, they deliberately deprive a child of either a mother or father. Many options exist for mentoring children - Boys and Girls Clubs, etc. You can’t have it all. People need to leave marriage alone and let it do what it’s supposed to do, but some have a political agenda. In addition, many people have lost sight of the purpose of marriage because of no-fault divorce, the pill, the destruction of the old taboo against sex outside of marriage - the whole sexual revolution.
The government originally awarded benefits to married couples because the government got something extremely valuable back in return - the next generation (of government workers ;-), military personnel and so on). The entire future of society depended on married couples bearing children. Raising a child is extremely costly and time-consuming, demanding sacrifices from caregivers. The government gets nothing back from purely adult relationships. People care for elderly sick parents and receive no benefits. The self-fulfillment and recognition that adults get from adult relationships is no business of the government.
On May 4, somebody posted an article at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2011086/posts . The article is a bit sensationalistic, but it makes the point about gay marriage more quickly than I can.
Shameless bump. This issue needs lots of discussion.
Thanks for the well thought out reply you make a very good case for the preservation of marriage.
Of course they do, if by "liberty" you imply absolute liberty, which is anarchy. You know this, and the "liberty" gimmick is employed anytime a leftist liberal doesn't get his way. He isn't concerned that liberty is being limited, only that his particular wants are being denied. We live under a penal legal system, which effectively says that all behavior is permissible unless prohibited by some specific law or ordinance. So, every law passed does in some way limit what an individual would otherwise be free to do. This is acceptable in a society in which millions of separate egos operate - it always has been acceptable. Otherwise, the extermination of mankind is assured.
And what's the criteria that determines what behavior is restricted or limited? That's what the democratic process is designed to do. And this is based, as least historically in the United States, on a Judeo-Christian moral code, and by a consensus of what the majority of voting citizens determine is acceptable behavior and norms, either directly or through elected representatives.
I think the chances of the marriage amendment being approved by the public is somewhere between slim & none...
You mean like the numerous marriage initiatives introduced within the last several in the vast majority of states falling flat? I think you need to refresh yourself on the facts.
...the only way this could ever become law is by decree.
Who's decree? By 4 judges? Democrats and liberals know this method only too well.
bttt
I don't think that the "gimmick" is limited to just liberals. It is doubtful though that your logic will be successful in preserving marriage because your own agenda gives you away.
I really hope the cartoonist is right. And so should you if you live in middle America.
Yeah, right. Everyone knows gays, has gay friends, but NEVER until recently has it become so blatant and in our faces, with people marching down the street in garish get-ups, interrupting church services, and preaching it to our children in the schools.
People are just fighting back for OUR country.
Exactly right. I live in CA and I'm going to fight to pass the amendment to the state constitution. But who's to say judges won't force the same kind of decision on other states? The judges and media now think they run this country, and it's beginning to look like they may be right.
We'll see in November, although I, too, have doubts about this CA amendment passing in one of the most liberal states in the U.S. After all, the voters elected the legislature that twice tried to legislate same-sex marriage into existence.
The institution of marriage has many more enemies than just the encroachment from the homosexual left: Voluntary single parenthood springing from culturally acceptable promiscuity; easy, flippant divorce; adults that are increasingly mentally and emotionally immature, thinking and acting like the children that are in their charge; liberal notions of what a family is and should be; the radical feminization of society. Perhaps radical homosexualization is but one branch of this rotten tree, but is just as destructive as all the others.
... because your own agenda gives you away.
Agenda, huh? And the left doesn't have an agenda that's as clear as crystal? And which "agenda" (value system, actually) does the average American identify with? Voters in 27 states to date have amended their constitutions by referendum to protect marriage as the one man/one woman institution it has historically been. Several other have passed laws short of constitutional amendments defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. These issues have passed by significantly wide margins wherever they have been put to a public vote. You're assertions don't line up with the facts. Do a little research next time before replying.
The government owns the next generation? Sounds like Communism to me, comrade!
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.