May 19, 2006

With This Ring I Y'All Wed

Hatched by Dafydd

Talk of same-sex marriage is becoming less "strange" to people's ears... and that represents a terrible danger to Western civilization. Just become something is become ubiquitous doesn't mean it's good or socially healthy; after all, we used to hear racial epithets so often, it seemed "normal."

It's an apt metaphor: those flogging same-sex marriage like to cast themselves as the "Freedom Riders" of gender-neutral marriage, trying to piggyback on the achievements of the Civil Rights movement to promote the idea that children don't need fathers or mothers growing up... just parental units of indeterminate gender. This is a despicable meme that, in lesser form, has already devastated families, particularly in black communities, where some 70% of children are now born out of wedlock and raised without fathers.

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10 to 8 (strict party lines) to send to the Senate floor a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage nationwide. The amendment has no chance of passage; it needs 67 senators and 290 representatives just to send the amendment to the states, and there's nothing even close to that level of support.

But it's good that we keep bringing this up again and again, because we're apt to hear soon from federal circus-court panels that whole sections of the country must allow same-sex marriage -- because three guys in black robes said so. (No state has ever freely voted for same-sex marriage; two have "civil unions," which are not the same thing.)

Several points to make briefly, without a lot of argument:

  • Same-sex marriage is not about "civil rights."

In the days of Jim Crow, blacks were denied the right to do the same things that whites could do: for example, blacks could not use the same rest rooms, water fountains, or even sit at the same lunch counters as whites. These racist laws were not based upon black behavior but the blackness itself; the South used the "one-drop" rule: one drop of "black blood" made you black, no matter how white you looked. No amount of good behavior could buy use of a "white toilet" by a black man.

But the gay activists pushing same-sex marriage are not demanding any right or freedom; legal marriage equals state recognition of a union, not the union itself. The union of any number of people is already protected as a liberty interest by the Supreme Court.

But one can completely support Lawrence v. Texas, the case that found laws against "sodomy" to be unconstitutional (as I do) -- while still rejecting the idea that the State must sanction any relationship someone declares.

To enact legal same-sex marriage is to say that the people of a state cannot decide what types of relationships they will applaud... and that is not a civil right... it's a narcissistic demand, like an infant howling for candy.

  • The purpose of advocating same-sex marriage is not to compliment traditional marriage -- but to destroy it.

Many of the same activists advocating same-sex marriage also advocate polyamorous marriage and consanguineous marriage. They often cite as an argument "for" same-sex marriage the fact that too many folks who get married to a member of the opposite sex get divorced for frivolous reasons. But why is that an argument for diluting marriage even further by making it nothing more special than a business partnership?

If same-sex marriage becomes the norm, then as night follows day, polygamy, polyandry, group marriages, brother-sister marriages, and sham marriages among entire gated communities (for tax, insurance, and pension reasons) will become commonplace, as well.

  • The core organic component of Western Civilization is one man, one woman marriage.

That is unquestionably the best way to raise children (Hillary Clinton notwithstanding); it represents the union of the male and the female principles; it is the best system for valuing and respecting women, who will be first and worst hurt if we abandon it.

If America jettisons traditional marriage and family, embracing all sorts of multi-partner unions on the basis of group rights, then we will fixate entirely upon the group and cast aside the individual as an irrelevancy. We already have forces (racial preferences, for example) tugging us in that direction; it is no exaggeration to say that our critical concepts of individualism, freedom, Capitalism, rights and responsibilities, and American exceptionalism will fall by the way.

I will likely return to this subject in the future; it's a principle about which I feel very strongly indeed.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 19, 2006, at the time of 6:52 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference With This Ring I Y'All Wed:

» California Marriage: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly from Big Lizards
California is often so far ahead of the rest of the country, we may as well be on another planet. Fortunately, we're usually not the bellwether. (Curiously, twenty years ago, I wouldn't have characterized that as "fortunate." But that was... [Read More]

Tracked on July 6, 2006 6:00 PM


The following hissed in response by: Truzenzuzex

But the gay activists pushing same-sex marriage are not demanding any right or freedom; legal marriage equals state recognition of a union, not the union itself. The union of any number of people is already protected as a liberty interest by the Supreme Court.
Seems to me that what the activists want is to define a gay union as marriage, not union. Same-sex unions wouldn't be affected at all by the proposed amendment, state recognition or no. Seems to me the state can, notwithstanding this amendment, recognize a gay union any way they want except as marriage.

It seems that what the gay lobby is demanding is nothing less than a government-mandated imprimatur of propriety on committed homosexual relationships. They aren't interested in functional equality. Rather, they want the government to tell everyone in law that a homosexual relationship is just as moral (after all, what is law but the skeleton of morality codified?) and just as desirable as heterosexual relationships. In other words, they don't just want the government to say homosexual relationships are OK - they demand the government say that such relatinships are GOOD.

The above hissed in response by: Truzenzuzex [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 7:44 AM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

And now, it's time to watch me paint myself into a corner, make enemies, and potentially make myself sound like an idiot.

This whole marriage debate leaves me bored. I support marriage. I recognize how society benefits from it. I do not believe that gays want to be married, I think they want to be celebrated.

But I just don't see why the Government at any level should decide who is, and who is not, in a state of Religious Grace.

Holy Matrimony.

Remember the Holy? Pardon me for feeling that a marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman IN THE EYES OF GOD! Why should the State sanction such a thing? Taxes, certainly. Legal authority over another person and their goods, of course. Otherwise?

Implications: I don't care if there are multi-partner marriages. I don't care if there are GAY marriages. I don't care if you marry a rock. (Children and animals are out on the grounds that the State has to protect those who cannot protect themselves.) I don't care about those other kinds of marriages on the grounds that I don't care what Religious conventions other people follow.

Sounds kinda cold, but yeah, I don't care if they go to Hell. I'm responsible for MY State of Grace with the Almighty, and as for the rest I'll pray for you... but I won't force you to follow Gods law.

When the Religious Campainers Against Gay Marriage stop divorcing each other on whims, then they'll have a moral standing to pontificate on others' marriages. I recognize that Daffyd is NOT arguing on Religious grounds, so please do not take offense on this point. { feel free to take offense on any other. ;0 }

But my basic point: Exactly WHAT should the Government recognize about any Holy State, and why?

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 8:08 AM

The following hissed in response by: Papa Ray

Well, I think the only reason the state or federal government want to be involved is because of the money.

You know, they want your money so they need to know what tax rate you should pay, and they want you to pay the one that is highest.

If you want to change your name from george to georgia and get married to Bill, they won't know and most likely won't care as long as they get the money, unless it would be more if you were still unmarried, which it is.

So, if unmarried they get more money, lets not make marriage legal for those other than man and woman. That leaves them with MORE money.

It is all about the money.


Papa Ray

The above hissed in response by: Papa Ray [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 9:21 AM

The following hissed in response by: BigLeeH

One hears the gay "marriage" movement touted as a libertarian issue. Why, it is asked, should gay men or lesbian women not be allowed to marry and to receive the social and legal status that marriage affords?

The problem with this argument is to ask what, exactly, homosexual couples are not allowed to do. They can have a big party and invite all their friends. They can stand up in church and make promises that they may or may not keep -- assuming they can find a suitably "progressive" church. They can share a house, a car, a bank account and a bed. In that bed they can do pretty much anything they like, as far as I am concerned and any law that says otherwise should be struck down.

What they can't do is to force the rest of us to call them "married" when we think that the word refers to something else altogether.

Its a bit like women who want to enroll in a men's school. It is impossible by definition. The second the first woman enrolls in an all-male school it becomes a co-ed school and the all-male entity no longer exists. We could have a spirited debate about whether anything is really lost -- whether the new co-ed school is just as good as the old all-male school -- but it is harder to deny that something is lost when the institution of marriage no longer means the union of a man and a woman; that is to say when marriage as an institution is destroyed.

Marriage is a social and political framework built to civilize the inherant procreative tendancy of heterosexual couples by encouraging them to form stable families in which to raise their children. The defining benefits of marriage are for the next generation -- not for the married couple but for their children. To the extent that marriage confers benefits to the current generation we can consider providing those with civil unions but even then we need to remember that the situations are different and fair doesn't always mean exactly the same.

One of the things that won't be the same is that men and women can be "married" while male couples will be best friends forever and famale couples will be tweedy women who live as roommates.

The above hissed in response by: BigLeeH [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 10:15 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Mr. Michael:

Churches already have that right under the First Amendment. There are religions that recognize same-sex marriage, and nobody that I've heard has challenged that right -- nobody has said that churches should not be allowed, as a matter of law, from marrying two men or two women, even if such marriages are not recognized in law.

We're only arguing the following secular questions:

  • Whether society should or should not recognize same-sex unions as legal, secular marriages;
  • Whether they can if they want;
  • Whether they should be forced to do so by judges against the wishes of the people and their representatives in the legislature.

To which I answer no, yes, and no.

The vaguely related question of whether there should be legal, secular marriages at all is interesting but beyond the scope of my current interest. (Readers can certainly debate it in the comments if they like!)


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 1:26 PM

The following hissed in response by: Veritas Regina

I agree with Mr. Michael. And I might suggest that the original reason for the state to take an interest in marriage was to protect and count the children that would INEVITABLY issue from the marriage. Since the introduction of birth control, no-fault divorce, and the sexual revolution, this is no longer the overriding issue. Now it's mostly about protecting and counting community property. This is the primary goal of the same-sex marriage people. The government should get out of the holy matrimony business. What we will have left is contracts that we have always been powerless to enforce, EXCEPT when it comes to the care of children.

The above hissed in response by: Veritas Regina [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 6:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Queen of Truth:

What we will have left is contracts that we have always been powerless to enforce, EXCEPT when it comes to the care of children.

Kind of a glaring exception, isn't it?


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 6:35 PM

The following hissed in response by: Val

I haven't heard it mentioned in any of the public debates, but, at least among gay men, marital unions are not viewed the same as hetero unions are by the vast majority of people. Every couple I know of, including two that are 'married', have agreements that allow for sexual activities with others outside the relationship. This is common, accepted, and one could say, expected, by the gay community at large. It strikes me that those that push for the legalization of gay marrige want to have it both ways, which begs the question: What exactly would be the value of marrige. It would certainly be diltued more than it already has been.

Curiously enough, noe of these couples that I know really care about the legalization. Perhaps it is just the vocal and radical few that make all the noise?

The above hissed in response by: Val [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 6:37 PM

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!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved