June 22, 2008
Marriage Is a Slippery Slope
Since state supreme courts such as California’s and that of the Bay State, Massachusetts, have chosen to take upon themselves what ought to be the legislative function of deciding what is and what is not marriage, they should be prepared to take responsibility for opening up a can of worms that will reform society, possibly not for the better.
I’m not one who thinks that the world will end if men are allowed to marry other men, and women other women. But by stating that such a practice is “a right,” rather than leaving it up to increasingly liberal legislatures to legalize it, the courts leave little doubt that soon members of cultish offshoots of religions that have long since abandoned bigamy will take their place in line demanding a seat at the table of matrimony.
After all, the concept of monogamy is a relatively recent innovation among the Society of Man. The Bible speaks quite frequently of patriarchs, such as Abraham, who had several wives. In Muslim countries it is still widely accepted practice. If we cannot by statute establish that marriage is between a man and a woman, how can we deny those who say they have a lot of love to spread around many women?
And why we draw the line there? Pedophiles have for years demanded that the right to love those whom society deems “minors.” Although we may draw away in revulsion at such a thought, it becomes significantly harder to deny those rights, particularly if sought by consenting individuals. People such as Hillary Clinton have for a long time argued that children “have rights” over and above those of not being mistreated by their parents. What if a minor argues that he or she has a right to love an adult?
Why stop there? Many people love their pets far more than they care for most people. If they are consumed with “puppy love,” who are we as a society to deny them? Marriage is indeed becoming a slippery slope.
Hatched by Dave Ross on this day, June 22, 2008, at the time of 10:25 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3088
The following hissed in response by: nk
If, "In the beginning He made them. Man and Woman He made them. And it is written that a man shall leave his mother and father and a woman shall leave her mother and father..., etc." then how could the law of man possibly prevail against the law of nature?
The above hissed in response by: nk at June 23, 2008 1:52 AM
The following hissed in response by: BigLeeH
What irks me about this sort of issue is the libertarian gloss that people put over what is essentially an collectivist/egalitarian issue. People say "shouldn't a girl be free to enroll in a boy's school?" or "shouldn't gay couples be allowed to marry" when what they mean is "shouldn't the government outlaw single gender education?" or "shouldn't the government force an unwilling majority to call gay couples 'married' even if they consider the relationship to be something else altogether?"
The following hissed in response by: Jesse Brown
Well, I love my dogs and I let the male (Golden) sleep with me but I don't want to marry them!
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved