Posted on 03/02/2004 7:32:37 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
A telling moment (maybe one of only two that occurred) during the last debate for the Democrat candidates for President in New York yesterday, was an exchange between Dan Rather and John Kerry. Three times Rather asked, “What is wrong with gay marriage?” Three times Kerry ducked the question, and rambled on about civil unions.
Rather didn’t have a clue about the basic question to ask. Kerry had not applied his “enormous” intellect to the development of two opposite and long-winded answers to offer the one suited to the audience at hand. Still, the attempted question-and-answer was a skirmish in what the lamestream media assures us is a new “cultural war” in the United States.
Not only has the press assured us that a new war has begun, Ted Kennedy, the senior Senator from Massachusetts (and winner of the Marlon Brando look-alike contest) has already discovered who started this war. In his classic hybrid between a shout and a growl, last week he blamed President Bush for firing the first shot by announcing support for the proposed Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution.
Apparently, the good Senator has not read any of his home state newspapers of late. He hadn’t noticed that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had issued two rulings requiring that Commonwealth to issue marriage licenses to pairs of homosexuals, rewriting the state’s constitution to reach that result. The good Senator therefore did not comment on how President Bush and his eminence grise, Karl Rove, had engineered this action by four (of the seven) judges on that court to put the issue front and center, before the President took any position on that proposed amendment.
Nor did the assembled press that heard the Senator’s charge bother to ask him about how the President managed to get those four judicial democrats to rule that way, and with near- perfect timing for the 2004 presidential election. Add to that the follow-up action by the greenhorn Mayor of San Francisco, another Democrat apparently under the thumb of the Bush machine, to change the law of California on his own hook and issue thousands of “marriage” licenses to a parade of homosexuals from around the known universe.
The first thing of interest in the Lexington and Concord of this war is the absence of one word and the universal use of another. In a cultural war, it is words, not soldiers, who are killed and wounded in action. About 99.4 percent of this press coverage uses the word “gay” to describe these “marriages,” rather than homosexual. Homosexual is the accurate word, but gay has such a pleasant, Cole-Porterish implication, that it is substituted. So the word homosexual has been captured and is being held in a prisoner of war camp for the duration.
The word that is universally used is “discrimination.” This is the technique of the Big Lie. Say something long enough and loud enough, and people will begin to believe it, even if they would realize that it is false with only a few moments of reflection. The meaning of discrimination, which is absolutely essential to the life of the nation, as it is to the life of all citizens, is the subject of this column.
The popular press meaning (a false one) of the word “discrimination,” is: something unfair done to some identified group, which the government ought to correct. Both parts of this are assumptions in the mind of the person using the word – that the actions are unfair, and that the government is obligated to act. The actual meaning of “discrimination” from the Oxford English Dictionary is: perceiving, noting or making a distinction or difference between things; a distinction (made with the mind or in action).
Far from being a philosophical wrong, discrimination is essential to public and private life. Allow me to prove that point first, and then we can apply that concept to the issue of homosexual marriage.
You are a citizen about to vote for one of two candidates for President. (To those of you who might be thinking of voting for Ralph Nader, get real.) You have a choice between a candidate who takes positions on both sides of all issues and whose actions do not match his words, and a candidate who may not agree with you on all issues, but who has a record of consistency in what he does and says. You vote for one of those two.
Is this discrimination?
You are a citizen about to vote for a Member of Congress. You have a choice between a long-time incumbent who has settled into the “get along, go along” philosophy espoused by the late, great House Speaker Sam Rayburn, and a young Turk who is bright, dedicated, but wet behind the ears. You vote for one of those two.
Is this discrimination?
Switch to the personal side of life. You are a student just out of college and you have the choice between two jobs, one that has a moderate salary and chances of advancement, the other a lower-paid hourly job without such opportunities. You accept one of those.
Is this discrimination?
You are parents of a teenaged daughter. She shows up with a boyfriend who has hair down past his shoulders, is a college dropout, has no job and no apparent inclination to get one. Do you discourage her from possibly marrying that person?
Is this discrimination?
You are the parents of a teenaged son. He shows up with a girlfriend who has a half dozen visible body piercings and possibly others not visible. She cheerfully notes that her movie credits include a low-budget release, “Doris Does Duluth.” Do you discourage that relationship?
Is this discrimination?
You get the point. Making choices based on available information is essential to public and private life. As individuals, we make such public choices every two years (or more). And we make such choices in our private lives dozens of times every day. Now let’s apply that thinking to the subject of homosexual marriage.
Archeology has established that the creation of families among humans is much older than the creation of governments. One of the first and primal purposes of governments and law, when established, was to define and protect the family. In most nations, the definition of families, which includes the definition of marriage, is based on the most widely-shared religious traditions of the population.
There is not a universal definition of marriage in all societies. Some permit polygamy. A few permit polyandry (one women with multiple husbands). None to my knowledge have ever included group marriage (multiple men and multiple women). However, in the United States, first in its colonies and later in its states, the definition of marriage for almost four centuries has been one man with one woman.
The only exception to this was among the early Mormons, who accepted polygamy. However, after Congress passed the Mann Act which criminalized polygamy and was upheld in the Supreme Court, the Mormon Church changed its definition of marriage to the classical one. While I am not familiar with the family law of all of the nearly 200 Indian tribes in the United States, the ones I do know also favor the classic definition of marriage being a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman.
Is this discrimination?
The objection to the classic definition of marriage is that it bars “committed homosexual couples” from the legal benefits of marriage, such as inheritance, health benefits, etc. This claim is false. As usual, the lamestream media has fumbled the ball by not doing its homework. There is a legal provision much older than the United States and recognized in the laws of every state and the federal government. It is called “joint and several ownership.” It can be applied to either real property like houses, or personal property like stocks, bonds, bank accounts and automobiles.
Anyone who has ever opened a “joint account” in a bank, or bought a house while married and signed the closing documents, understands this point. Properly set up, two people may have any relationship they wish, or none at all, and if they choose “joint and several ownership,” the survivor of them will automatically receive the property. Other questions, like health benefits for a “partner,” visitation in hospitals, or power of attorney to act for the other person if he/she becomes disabled, are all capable of being solved, and ARE being solved, by state laws, private actions of corporations or employers, or of the individuals themselves.
Is the process as easy for couples who are not married, as for those that are? No, it isn’t. But it can all be done without grabbing the word “marriage” by the throat and choking it until it is twisted into something that it has never meant, anywhere in the world, at any time in history. The whole effort to push through “homosexual marriage” really has little to do with legal rights. All such rights are available without redefining marriage. No, the purpose is to capture the word “marriage,” and therefore “normalize” homosexuality by force.
Here’s where Dan Rather missed the point in his repeated questions about this to John Kerry. The first question is not “What is wrong with [homosexual] marriage?” The first question is, how and where in the American system of government is it proper for officials to decide that the definition of marriage should be changed?
Some claim that this is an issue of “states rights,” and that each state has the power to reach its own conclusion and is not required to agree with all others. There are, actually, differences today among the states on this point; they differ on the ages at which people can marry, and on how close is the relationship that will disqualify them as spouses. States have been living with these minor differences for centuries.
The problem on homosexual marriage is that it is a critical difference and cannot be restricted to just one state. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, each state must recognize the official acts of all other states. Given the tendency of lawyers to bring test cases on issues like this, it is a lock-solid guarantee that “married” homosexuals from Massachusetts or from San Francisco will show up in the courts of all states, demanding that those states recognize their marriages in other jurisdictions. So the states rights argument falls of its own weight on this issue.
The question of how this cultural war can end with a victory for common sense among most Americans will be addressed in next week’s column. You can see where that is headed from its title, which will be “Hijackers in Black Robes.”
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress.
- 30 -
Actually, this is the very point the CBB made in his essay.
You need to reread it, not skim it.
We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists and the democrats are sad ~ very sad!
John / Billybob
I discriminate every day, discrimination is a good thing, it means I still have some freedom. We need the constitutional ammendment.
Bear in mind, the gay agenda is not stopping at single partners.
Multiple partners are the goal, pedopheilia will be rampant.
I ditch my son and try and pick up the girl.
Thanks. My pleasure ! ;^)
John / Billybob
_______________________________________
Bob-billy , you really should do a little research before pontificating on history..
The Mormon Church "changed their definition"/mind about separation of church & state back in the 1890's, in order to get Utah admitted as a State in the Union.
Congress rightly refused them statehood until they could come up with an acceptable state constitution that supported a republican form of government, -- rather than a theocracy.
5 tpaine
Gee maybe the Mormons didnt realize that this was discrimination or that their rights were taken away.
What rights? Do you believe they have a 'right' to set up a state government that discriminates against non-believers in their religion?
Sorry, -- but that's not how a republican form of government works.
Maybe they will demand their rights to polygamy or polyandry. And the beat goes on. Where will it end? No one seems to know. I really thought Bush was on to something with the amendment BUT.......maybe not, he sure isnt getting any support from the GOP on this.....disappointing!!
I find it encouraging that most have the wisdom to realize that we shouldn't amend our constitution for such petty reasons.. Traditional marriage can be defended by using the constitution as it exists.
Yep, running about it public in leather collars half nude can be declared perverse & illegal.. Indeed; "Society has a right and a duty to promote it's own health and wellbeing."
But we long ago wrote a Constitution with a Bill of Rights's to a private life, with liberty, and to private property.
- Therefore, -- we can't just throw queers in prison for being weird.
Homosexuality was a crime in most states before activist judges got in on the act, as was abortion.
Such prohibitive type laws frequently violate our BOR's in their enforcement. Thus, judges strike them down on that basis..
For decades now we have endured judicial and federal social engineering to our detriment and harm.
States also indulge in "social engineering", and such 'laws' are equally unconstitutional.
Congress better get off it's rear and begin to impeach or there will be another of a long list of reasons not to vote Republican.
I agree. Impeach the judges & politicians who violate our liberties.. -- And leave our constitutional basics as written.
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.