Recently, Gay Marriage has passed in New York State. As a Yank, I am disgusted by the lack of spine the NYS Senate GOP showed as they passed this measure. As a Christian I am appalled. As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I have to think this one over and remedy my feelings on the issue with my political philosophy that government should not do anything to control or subjugate people.
Homosexuals have been, and continue to be, free to conduct their affairs as they see fit, just like everyone else. As Americans, it is a fundamental right to pursue happiness as we deem fit. For some, this means breaking the norm – a norm informally set by society and its extra-governmental values [traditions]. Gays are not precluded from breaking these norms and pursuing their own happiness. That is the bottom line.
Questions now arise regarding the purpose of marriage. Is marriage a right? Is the purpose of marriage to assist in the pursuit of happiness? If the answer to either question is “yes,” gay marriage must be permitted. However, this is not the case. First and foremost, marriage is not a “right.” Rights are endowed by our creator and marriage isn’t one of them. If marriage is a right, I want government to provide me with the bride I am entitled to if I am not hitched by 30!
Secondly, government marriage has nothing to do with happiness. The God of Abraham, Jesus Christ, Buddha, etc, and their respective Churches and Temples care if you are happy with your marriage, not government. Government marriage and its tax and healthcare related benefits are issued only to ensure a suitable environment for the creation of new life. Government cares about this because a suitable environment for child rearing means couples will have more children, thereby creating a stable or increasing labor force, ensure population stability, and hopefully provide an environment that will yield the scientists and engineers of tomorrow.
I oppose homosexual marriage because homosexual unions do not grant society this benefit. Last I checked, homosexuals cannot create life. How can we call two unions equal if the fundamental groundwork for the union is vastly different? I love fried catfish and I love apples, but I would never compare the two or call fried catfish an apple. If this changes down the line, whether by Darwinian evolution or the Hand of God, I will revisit my conclusion. Perhaps marriage has changed from the days of mom & apple pie, but if it is no longer about creating a family – perhaps government should abolish the institution all together and save its money.
Another aspect to this struggle is one of ideological dominance. Government must treat all life-guiding principles as a religion and enforcing them on another is always wrong. Secularism IS a religion. Under the various guises of women’s rights, reproductive health, marriage equality, and the ACLU – secularism is a poison that seeks to subjugate the masses through social engineering. It seeks to eliminate other value systems, including extra-governmental norms, through a systematic attack through the mediums of government under the false banner of tolerance.
Allowing gays, or anyone for that matter, to live life as they see fit despite ones own reservations is tolerance. Thrusting a value system upon a populous is radical “acceptionalism” (meaning forced acceptance) and is the epitome of intolerance. Gay marriage seeks to thrust a new value system upon society and meticulously dismantle the extra-governmental values that society generally is guided by. Although gay marriage is not the be-all and end-all of this process, it is a mile marker.
With that, I must commend the 41 states that have either constitution bans on same-sex marriage or have laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman.
As a side note, I would not rule out statutorily strengthening contracts delegating inheritance rights and end of life decisions to a same-sex partner for that security is fundamental to the pursuit of happiness and it is ones right to delegate it as such.
Bottom line: Marriage is not a right, state marriage it is not solely meant for the purpose of happiness, gay marriage is biologically different than heterosexual marriage and therefore not comparable nor can it be equated, and gay marriage is part of the great war this country faces against secularism. Do not let the guise of tolerance cloud your judgment in the face of this intolerance.
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” – Abe Lincoln
Great post. You sum it up extremely well. Go have your gay marriage and quit banging on traditionalists to "accept it". Your points about inheritance and other contracts raise another point. They are fake issues, just like hospital visitation. Show me the line of gay "spouses" denied visitation rights or denied benefits of a valid contract. I know of no law that says one may not bestow ones property to a homosexual bed mate.
ReplyDeleteI give you an 'A' Matt. Well constructed viewpoints. I esp. liked the 4th to last paragraph, and last paragraph and quote.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I might add, that is not very PC but still true. Homosexuals as a group have some of the highest rates of venerial diseases, hepatitis B, syphilis, etc in society.
A government that regulates drinking, the sale of drugs, and even now cigarette smoking, must have at least some say in the sexual activity of others, esp. if it is statistically dangerous to others in a society. The "pursuit of happiness" must abide within the laws and confines of a civil society, which should be based off the laws of the land. The government should be supporting/protecting good things that enrich and advance society, not fringe activities, that create disease, and have little relation to raising children into productive/fruitful/intelligent/conscientious beings.
1) Homosexuals cannot create life, but they can nurture it. There are many unwanted children who are fostered or adopted into homes headed by same-sex couples; don't those children deserve the same benefits and security as naturally-born children? The government's interest is not in CREATING life, but in nurturing children as they develop into productive adults.
ReplyDelete2) Heterosexuals can receive all the inheritance, insurance, child support and tax benefits of marriage for a pittance - the cost of a marriage license. Same-sex couples, without the right to marry, must spend THOUSANDS of dollars on legal fees, and even then there is no guarantee the documents will be honored, and suing because they weren't honored costs more money and more time. This is a grossly inequitable situation.
3) It is not intolerance to reject someone else's bigotry. It has been said that your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose - your right to the free exercise of your religion stops when it abridges my rights.
Do not forget we live in a Democratic REPUBLIC, meaning we as a nation acknowledge that the majority (or in most cases today, the loudest voice) is not always right. If it were not for the hand of the republic, slaves would not have been freed, women would not have the right to vote, as well as many other injustices that were considered "the norm" in their time. With the guiding hand of those that we as the American people elected, society is striding forward. Whether or not you'd like to be a part of progress or simply a oppositional statistic in the history books is up to you.
ReplyDeleteThanks everyone for the comments.
ReplyDeleteDr, you make some good points and I do respect the sentiment. But as to point 1, nurturing and creating are a very different ball game. Gay adoption is a whole issue unto itself. I agree with you on point 2, which is why I wouldn't innately disagree with laws to strengthen rights of inheritance and whatnot - even if it is a very limited civil union type arrangement that anyone can enter.
As to point 3 - if you accept the notion of secularism as a religion unto itself, my point is valid.
"Last I checked, homosexuals cannot create life."
ReplyDeleteThen the last time you checked must have been before in vitro fertilization came around. Also, as has been said before, even if same-sex couples don't want to have new children, they are still able to adopt from the millions of orphans in the United States or other countries.
The reason that same-sex marriage is being recognized by the government is that as there are no non-religious reasons to bar homosexual couples from marrying, the govenment is required by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to guarantee the same rights for these couples as are given heterosexual couples.
As a separate issue, could you explain how secularism is a religion in a non-hyperbolic sense of the word? Preferably in a manner which doesn't undermine the very notion of separation of church and state by declaring every group of like-minded people (e.g. people belonging to any political party) as a religion that is thus exempt from the ability to hold any political office? I understand that religion can be used loosely to define any group of people with a certain belief system, but a common belief in a supernatural element based on faith is the common usage of the word, and it's the only one that makes contextual sense to me as applied to the constitutional amendment in question. Ideologies, however, aren't considered religions under the constitution. The whole purpose of democracy is to foster debate which hopefully strikes a balance between competing ideologies to create a society by the people, for the people. Disregarding the fact that secular people have a wide range of beliefs, and also that people of various faiths also subscribe to the list of beliefs you attribute solely to secular people, can you honestly say that people who have strong opinions about society should be banned from political office?
ReplyDeleteI'll add that in vitro fertilization cannot take two sperm and create life. It also cannot take two eggs and create life. I think that's kind of what the author meant when he said "homosexuals cannot create life".
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I do not know where you get the idea that those who follow a religion should be barred from office - secular, christian, or otherwise. That is not the case. Of course enforcing doctrine through law would be.
ReplyDeleteWebster defines religion as: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects." Plain and simple, secularism fits the bill. It puts faith in humanity rather than a higher power. As I stated in the article, I do not believe marriage is a right because it does not assist in the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, to change such a valued tradition is to thrust new doctrine, a new belief system, upon society. That, whether it comes from a Christian, secularist, or Muslim, is ALWAYS wrong. Christians have not sought to enfringe on the rights of gays to live as they please through laws. The same cannot be said vice versa.
I think along similar lines, though not 100%, but you've come up with good reasoning to back up your views. You're also the first blogger I've seen that's picked up on what I've been calling the "War on Normal."
ReplyDeleteI also think that you've found the best possible solution: "...perhaps government should abolish the institution all together and save its money." Existing contract law could take the place of a government marital institution. This would also automatically fix a lot of the other issues we have relating to marriage, such as taxes, immigration, and medical insurance. In a sense, marriage creates a governmentally-sanctioned privileged class.
I'm not sure I agree with your notion that the inability to have children is sufficient reason in itself for not redefining marriage to include other unions. The government doesn't ask (or care) why people want to get married. Therefore, it's possible that someone would get into a heterosexual marriage for the same reason that gays would want to. There are a lot more reasons these days than family to get married, and unfortunately, a lot of them have to do with the government perks they provide. I understand that the government has an interest in keeping the family unit going, but a lot of the perks offered have also poisoned that well a bit.
Matt, what about infertile couples?
ReplyDeleteSince they can't have kids conventionally does that mean there shunned and shouldn't be allowed to marry?
This is similar to the debate surrounding the word "literally" in recent years. I can say that it is, "...literally a million degrees outside," and I'm actually using the word correctly as per Webster's second definition. It's a hyperbolic use of the word which means roughly the opposite of the word's primary definition. If I only took the second definition (according to Webster) into account, I would have a vastly inaccurate interpretation of what that word meant.
ReplyDeleteI think it's very important to keep a level head when we're talking about preventing anyone from expressing or enacting views we disagree with politically. The point of democracy is supposed to be that people with differing views can come together to decide on the best of them. If an idea gets through which isn't in the country's best interests, we should be able to see our way to trying something different. It's very tempting to think that those who disagree with us are evil or stupid or ignorant, and it's very tempting to think of them as a nebulous and evil "they" who seek to destroy our way of life, or that they are secretly working in unison to undermine the very things we hold dear, but seeing as how both major political parties in the U.S. seem to be accusing one another of the exact same things, I think it's really important to take a big step back and carefully examine those thoughts.
As for your views regarding marriage and the pursuit of happiness, people generally seem pretty ecstatic when they get married. I'd assume that the notion that your marriage is somehow not as valid to your government as someone else's might somewhat undermine your union and the happiness it provides you. That said, if the reason government supports marriage is actually solely based on reproductive capacity, that institution really should be abolished. There are no checks on heterosexual marriages to ensure they are "producing" for society. Heterosexual couples can be asexual, have vasectomies or hysterectomies, use contraceptives, adopt, be foster parents, employ surrogates, raise children from previous marriages, raise children resulting from infidelity, raise children resulting from rape, or get in vitro fertilization, and they can and do receive benefits from marriage in all of those situations. It seems ridiculous to deny gay couples the same benefits in nearly identical situations. I wouldn't disagree at all with abolishing the entire institution, but it seems like a far larger jump for there to be no government-acknowledged marriages at all than for the definition of marriage to be loosened slightly. If changing a valued tradition slightly is forcing a doctrine on people, how is eradicating a valued tradition any better?
I apologize in advance if you consider my comments too long, but I was trying (and probably still failing) to be clear in what I meant. I've found it's far too easy for comments on sensitive topics like this to be taken out of context and snowball into a flame war. I genuinely appreciate your attempts to remain level-headed and introspective regarding your views.
ReplyDeleteI've made several posts now which aren't showing up on your page for some reason. To the best of my knowledge there was no content in them that would have required moderation, so I'm not sure what's going on. My extant comments seem rather disjointed without the posts which preceded them (especially this most recent one beginning with the definition of "literal"). I even reposted the most recently omitted comment and it won't seem to work. If you have any insight, I'd love to continue the discussion.
ReplyDeleteHey Anonymous, Thanks for posting and I certainly see your point and appreciate your unpolitical and analytical view.
ReplyDeleteI do not no why your comments arent coming up...I certainly havent blocked it. Maybe its a blogspot spam prevention measure? Maybe it will work if you try tomorrow? I look forward to your complete thoughts.
On any note, as to heteros that do not have children...all I can say is that the possibility is there. If men and women can marry the opposite sex, one cannot regulate the type of people that wind up getting together. That is why the analogy to racial restrictions on marriages-past is illogical.
As too eradicating it - lets be real: The "nuclear family" is best. Nuclear families produce far less criminals and much more productive citizens. Marriage encourages that and should continue to do so. If it doesnt, why bother? Civil marriage is not the tradition we should care about...the tradition comes from Churches and religions is worth protecting. Government is irrelevant to that. Do u understand my separation of the two?
I understand the differentiation you are making, but I don't agree. Churches will continue their traditions regardless of whether they have the blessing of the government. There are many reasons why people get married that have nothing to do with family, or even love. Taxes, immigration, health insurance are just three that come to mind. Because of these reasons, the government is already encouraging people to get married for non-familial reasons, and naturally, other groups are going to want in on this. Thus a culture war is fought by two sides, neither of which actually started it.
ReplyDeletereligious organizations can still marry people without the help of the government's bureaucracy. Admittedly, more well-organized churches will be able to handle this better at first, but considering that people can be married by Elvis without even getting out of their car, I begin to wonder if government involvement hasn't already cheapened marriage more than the gays could ever hope to do.