Posted on 04/19/2009 6:39:01 AM PDT by billorites
You really can't have "gay marriage," you know, irrespective of what a court or a legislature may say.
You can have something some people call gay marriage, because to them the idea sounds worthy and necessary, but to say a thing is other than it is, is to stand reality on its head, hoping to shake out its pockets.
Such is the supposed effect of the Iowa Supreme Court's declaration this month that gays and heterosexuals enjoy equal rights to marital bliss. Nope. They don't and won't, even if liberal Vermont follows Iowa's lead.
The human race -- sorry ladies, sorry gents -- understands marriage as a compact reinforcing social survival and protection. It has always been so. It will always be so, even if every state Supreme Court pretended to declare that what isn't suddenly is. Life does not work in this manner.
The supposed redefinition of the Great Institution is an outgrowth of modern hubris and disjointed individualism. "What I say goes!" has become our national philosophy since the 1960s. One appreciates the First Amendment right to make such a claim. Nonetheless, no such boast actually binds unless it corresponds with the way things are at the deepest level, human as well as divine. Surface things can change. Not the deep things, among them human existences.
A marriage -- a real one -- brings together man and woman for mutual society and comfort, but also, more deeply, for the long generational journey to the future. Marriage, as historically defined, across all religious and non-religious demarcations, is about children -- which is why a marriage in which the couple deliberately repudiates childbearing is so odd a thing, to put the matter as generously as possible.
A gay "marriage" (never mind whether the couple tries to adopt) is definitionally sterile -- barren for the purpose of extending the generations for purposes vaster than any two people, (including people of opposite sexes), can envision.
Current legal prohibitions pertaining to something called "gay marriage" don't address the condition called homosexuality or lesbianism. A lesbian or homosexual couple is free to do pretty much as they like, so long as it doesn't 'like' too much the notion of remaking other, older ideas about institutions made, conspicuously, for others. Marriage, for instance.
True, marriage isn't the only way to get at childbirth and propagation. There's also the ancient practice called illegitimacy -- in which trap, by recent count, 40 percent of American babies are caught. It's a lousy, defective means of propagation, with its widely recognized potential for enhancing child abuse and psychological disorientation.
Far, far better is marriage, with all those imperfections that flow from the participation of imperfect humans. Hence the necessity of shooing away traditional marriage's derogators and outright enemies -- who include, accidentally or otherwise, the seven justices of Iowa's Supreme Court. These learned folk tell us earnestly that the right to "equal protection of the law" necessitates a makeover of marriage. And so, by golly, get with it, you cretins! Be it ordered that.
One can say without too much fear of contradiction that people who set themselves up as the sovereign arbiters of reality are -- would "nutty" be the word?
The Iowa court's decision in the gay marriage case is pure nonsense. Which isn't to say that nonsense fails to command plaudits and excite warnings to others to "keep your distance." We're reminded again -- as with Roe vs. Wade, the worst decision in the history of human jurisprudence -- of the reasons judges should generally step back from making social policy. For one thing, a judicial opinion can mislead viewers into supposing that, well, sophisticated judges wouldn't say things that weren't so. Would they?
Of course they would. They just got through doing it in Iowa, and now the basketball they tossed in the air has to be wrestled for, fought over, contested: not merely in Iowa, but everywhere Americans esteem reality over ideological fantasy and bloviation. A great age, ours. Say this for it anyway: We never nod off.
Sadly, there is no recall mechanism for Iowa Supreme Court justices.
Marital bliss....what’s that?
One man and one woman, raising their children. Sounds like nature’s vote for natural selection. Makes you wonder if nature ever experimented with other combinations before.
Start a movement to require gays to marry.
(Illustrate the rediculous with rediculousness.)
Easy girl, don’t let it show.
:’)
We have allowed gubberment to define marriage and are shocked when folks are conditioned to believe “gay marriage” is possible because gubberment says so. I bet folks would respect marriage better if the gubberment had never stuck its beak into it. Now to most folks it seems a marriage can’t exist unless the gubberment issues a license, and since in some places they issue them to two men or two women these marriages must be possible. I mean, who on FR is shocked that the gubberment messed this up?
Gay marriage is just as possible as “female priests” and “male priestesses” no matter what the gubberment says.
freegards
Gay “marriage” is all about FORCING those who do not approve of sodomy and whatever it is that lesbians do and call it “sex” to have to APPROVE heartily of what they consider deviant, unscriptural behavior. So, Political Correctness for all and free “choice” for only the select or elite. From what I’ve seen, weddings are overblown, and marriages of all types generally blow over. I, frankly, don’t give a tinker’s damn what they do any more. I want to do productive stuff and don’t have time or energy for belly-button examining. The Barney Franks and Ellen DeGenereses of the world have brought me to the place where if they be filthy, then I have no choice but to allow them to be filthy without me getting my bowels all in an uproar.. but if it’s hearty approval and marching in “gay pride” parades they’re wanting from me, forget it! I wish no one ill, but get out of my face about it; I don’t flaunt my sexual preferences in their faces. It’s private.
And there's the heart of the issue of homosexuality. It's not natural. Q.E.D.
The government should stay out of the marriage business all together. There is no reason for their involvement. We don’t need them for property or custody issues. You can just go to a court like other normal unmarried people to settle those disputes. And we certainly don’t need their approval for our relationships. Just get married in a church or vegas or a temple, etc.
At this point it would be difficult to untangle the chokehold, but I do wish goverment wasn’t involved in any marriage.
Good article
Poeple forget that as recently as 2000 there was actually a debate among the ‘mos over whether they even wanted marriage or not. That year I worked on California’s Proposition 22 (the first one that the courts through out, causing Prop 8). We actually had a collection of those people who were happy to say marriage is not for us. These guys admitted to us in private that they didn’t want to be tied (so to speak) to just one partner.
The truth is that as they get their way more and more, “marriage” isn’t going to be so popular among the so-called “men. It’s the same reason young bachelors avoid it and it’s why immature men don’t stay married for long. Horny guys crave promiscuity, it’s an underlying animal instinct such as that practiced by alley cats.
Most normal men in stable society overcome this instinct before long, but homos live it day in and day out. Their perverted lust causes them to crave more and more sexual partners. Deep down there is something missing so they keep at it looking for satisfaction. This is why marriages won’t and can’t last long among the queers. I’m sure it’s happening already and only a matter of time before the media enablers can no longer sweep it under the carpet.
“At this point it would be difficult to untangle the chokehold, but I do wish goverment wasn’t involved in any marriage.”
Yup, gubberment involvement, once started, is always super hard to get away from. And perhaps it was a good thing at one time. But a piece of paper from the gubberment doesn’t make anyone more or less married. If the gubberment refused to license Baptists to be married, well I as a Catholic would absolutely consider any Baptist marriages that took place without gubberment sanction to be absolutely valid as long as the marriage was between a man and woman.
Freegards
Of course, the contra-argument is that traditional marriage is rife with divorce, infidelity, child abuse and the like. I have heard it over and over, butressed by the example of loving, long-term homosexual partners who are denied a legal and social expression of their relationships. But the argument is fallicious..one is the failed human response to a perfect social institution, the other a salutory human response to an imperfect human condition.
But, they can be voted out eventually.
Why on earth aren’t talk radio show hosts like Rush and Hannity making these points?
Calling the union of homosexuals ‘marriage’ is like calling a hamburger ‘steak’.
Do IA Supreme Court judges stand for reelection ?
It most certainly has resulting in the blissful state of "extinction"...
; )
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.