Throughout history, from culture to culture, around the world, marriage has always been about uniting the two sexes. The state did not create marriage; marriage helped create the state and the state simply has recognized and licensed marriage. The idea that there could be a marriage without a bride or without a groom is a very recent concept that tries to do away with marriage, first by replacing it with a counterfeit. It has been around a little over a decade as a legal concept, first appearing in the Netherlands. None of the great human or civil rights leaders in history ever spoke about a "right" to "marry" someone of the same sex. It's a made-up right, unlike the rights written of in the the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere by the men who wrote and adopted those documents, which were seen as bestowed upon us by our Creator.
So marriage uniting a bride and groom is the default position. The marriage neutering advocates get all excited when someone announces their support for neutering marriage, but what we're not hearing are the 6,000,000,000 or so people in the world who understand marriage unites a bride and groom. Almost all of them DON'T send out a press release, tweet, or hold a press conference announcing their support for preserving the bride+groom requirement in marriage law. The marriage neutering advocates trumpet the news when those in power of a US state or a country abandon sense and capitulates to the whiny, petulant, narcissistic activists. But that still leaves the heavy majority of US states strongly in favor of keeping marriage laws reserved for marriage, and over 180 countries where people understand that there's no such thing as "same-sex marriage".
With that in mind, let's look at some of the statements made by marriage neutering advocates.
"I want to marry my partner.”
Since true marriage involves both sexes, this statement doesn't make sense. It is like saying "I want a square circle." I understand they want a license a state ends up calling a marriage license, but when you request something issued on behalf of the people, the people have a right to say "no".
"I want to share my life with my partner."
Go for it. Nobody is stopping you. You can even have a ceremony, exchange rings, have a party, received presents, go on a trip together, change names, live together, call each other spouses, and request that other people treat you as though you are married.
"We don’t have the same benefits as married couples."
Well, no, in most places you don't have the same government-regulated benefits, because you're not married. Marriage is a specific kind of voluntary association. The state treats different kinds of voluntary associations differently. Marriage is the only kind of association that can naturally create children and raise them with both a mother and a father who are legally, financially, socially, and some would say spiritually bound to each other and the children. The state has an interest in raising citizens. and thus supplies this model of doing do with certain benefits and protections. Businesses and organizations can choose to extend to you the same benefits they extend to married couples. Some benefits of marriage are social, emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual, largely having to do with uniting with someone of the opposite sex. Obviously, those benefits would not be magically extended to you even if the state were to recognize your relationship as marriage. In some places, you are extended the same legal benefits as a married couple.
"We can't have 'separate by equal'."
As an individual, you have the same access to forming the same kind of voluntary association as anyone else, so there isn't separate. That you don't want to form that kind of association does not mean there is something wrong wit a bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing.
"I love my partner just as much as you love your spouse."
Good for you. Love does not equal marriage. Love is not regulated or measured by the state. The state knows whether you are male or female.
"We’re being treated like second class citizens."
Again, you have the same access to marriage as anyone else. However, if you choose not to participate in marriage, you should not be treated like you are married. People should get treated differently based on behavior. Someone who wins an election will have certain benefits and access that their opponents won't get. Someone who serves honorably in the military will have the access that comes along with being a veteran, while a pacifist conscientious objector won't. Felons get treated differently from people who aren't felons.
"It's none of your business."
It is when it involves a state-issued marriage license. Those are issued by the state, which is comprised of the people. I am included in "the people". You are asking me to call something marriage when it isn't. It is none of my business if you have someone perform a ceremony for your relationship, you choose to live together, etc. But it becomes my business when it comes to marriage licenses.
"What harm is it to you?"
Counterfeits devalue the real thing. It is harmful when the law imposes an untruth (that both-sex and single-sex unions are identical) on the people. Also, if issuing marriage licenses to counterfeit marriages results in harm to marriage by reducing the number of legitimate marriages, then it is bad for society. Family law has an impact on all of us.
"If marriage is so sacred, what about divorce, Kim Kardashian, television shows like 'The Bachelor'?"
I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who is vocal about preserving marriage who supports the cheapening of marriage or likes the high divorce rate. But you know, our objections were met with the standard "change the channel or click off the television if you don't like it!", which was ignoring our point. We also hate divorce, but the fact that a significant number of people choose to end their involvement in a particular marriage (often, they go on to another marriage) does not mean that another kind of union should be recognized as marriage. We also hate sham marriages perpetrated by heterosexuals. However, why would the occurrence of one kind of mockery we don't like mean it is okay for the state to enshrine an entirely new kind of mockery into state practice?
"What’s the big deal? Marriage doesn’t mean anything anymore anyway - it’s just a piece of paper."
If it doesn't mean anything anymore, why are you trying so hard to change the laws so that a same-sex union will be called marriage? But you are on to something when you suggest that marriage isn't esteemed the way it used to be. For example, marriage used to be considered by most people a lifelong commitment that involved a division of labor, and the institution in which people lived together, had sex, and raised children. Now, much to dismay of the very same people who are trying to preserve marriage in the legal sense, society encourages... divorce if one spouse is unhappy or no longer "in love" regardless of whether they have children or not; husbands and wives to both work outside the home, share the domestic chores, and to have other people (day care workers, for one) raise their children; shacking up; sex outside of marriage or any sort of relationships whatsoever; and having children regardless of marital status.
I seem to recall Leftists, including homosexuality advocates, having had something to do with a lot of those shifts. It is interesting that now they say "What's the big deal about marriage anyway?" They're like an arsonist who burns down a house and then tells the property owner "You might as well sell your property. There's nothing on it."
Along the same lines, radical feminists have long insisted marriage is oppressive. Thanks to easy no-strings sex and punitive divorce settlements, many men are now claiming that marriage is miserable and oppressive for men. Yet most of those same people insist that "marriage" should be extended to same-sex couples. This doesn't make sense, because these people are claiming to be for "gay rights" but want to subject gays to something they consider oppressive.
"Get government out of the marriage business."
This is like when a robber demands $10,000 dollars from you, and you say no, so he then says "We'll compromise then – meet me halfway by giving me $5,000." It is tempting to "solve" the legislative and court fights by removing the issue entirely, but it isn't practical. The state has an interest in regulating marriage, in part because most marriages will involve citizens who have no say in the forming or continuing of the association (children). Also, if the state is going to get out of marriage, then it should have to get out of many probate and estate issues, alimony, and so forth. Also, men should no longer automatically be considered a baby's father simply because the baby was born to his wife.
Marriage has not been some sort of elaborate conspiracy to make homosexual people feel bad. I'm not trying to make homosexual people unhappy. However, I do not think that all of society should be reordered to coddle someone's feelings. Marriage was not arbitrarily created by the state. It is more likely that the state grew out of marriage. I truly believe it is better for society – which includes homosexual people – to distinguish, esteem, and regulate marriage. Also, marriage is sacred to me and can be recognized by the state, but not truly changed by the state. The activists do not stop to consider my feelings even as they ask me to reorder society to in an attempt to validate theirs.
So marriage uniting a bride and groom is the default position. The marriage neutering advocates get all excited when someone announces their support for neutering marriage, but what we're not hearing are the 6,000,000,000 or so people in the world who understand marriage unites a bride and groom. Almost all of them DON'T send out a press release, tweet, or hold a press conference announcing their support for preserving the bride+groom requirement in marriage law. The marriage neutering advocates trumpet the news when those in power of a US state or a country abandon sense and capitulates to the whiny, petulant, narcissistic activists. But that still leaves the heavy majority of US states strongly in favor of keeping marriage laws reserved for marriage, and over 180 countries where people understand that there's no such thing as "same-sex marriage".
With that in mind, let's look at some of the statements made by marriage neutering advocates.
"I want to marry my partner.”
Since true marriage involves both sexes, this statement doesn't make sense. It is like saying "I want a square circle." I understand they want a license a state ends up calling a marriage license, but when you request something issued on behalf of the people, the people have a right to say "no".
"I want to share my life with my partner."
Go for it. Nobody is stopping you. You can even have a ceremony, exchange rings, have a party, received presents, go on a trip together, change names, live together, call each other spouses, and request that other people treat you as though you are married.
"We don’t have the same benefits as married couples."
Well, no, in most places you don't have the same government-regulated benefits, because you're not married. Marriage is a specific kind of voluntary association. The state treats different kinds of voluntary associations differently. Marriage is the only kind of association that can naturally create children and raise them with both a mother and a father who are legally, financially, socially, and some would say spiritually bound to each other and the children. The state has an interest in raising citizens. and thus supplies this model of doing do with certain benefits and protections. Businesses and organizations can choose to extend to you the same benefits they extend to married couples. Some benefits of marriage are social, emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual, largely having to do with uniting with someone of the opposite sex. Obviously, those benefits would not be magically extended to you even if the state were to recognize your relationship as marriage. In some places, you are extended the same legal benefits as a married couple.
"We can't have 'separate by equal'."
As an individual, you have the same access to forming the same kind of voluntary association as anyone else, so there isn't separate. That you don't want to form that kind of association does not mean there is something wrong wit a bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing.
"I love my partner just as much as you love your spouse."
Good for you. Love does not equal marriage. Love is not regulated or measured by the state. The state knows whether you are male or female.
"We’re being treated like second class citizens."
Again, you have the same access to marriage as anyone else. However, if you choose not to participate in marriage, you should not be treated like you are married. People should get treated differently based on behavior. Someone who wins an election will have certain benefits and access that their opponents won't get. Someone who serves honorably in the military will have the access that comes along with being a veteran, while a pacifist conscientious objector won't. Felons get treated differently from people who aren't felons.
"It's none of your business."
It is when it involves a state-issued marriage license. Those are issued by the state, which is comprised of the people. I am included in "the people". You are asking me to call something marriage when it isn't. It is none of my business if you have someone perform a ceremony for your relationship, you choose to live together, etc. But it becomes my business when it comes to marriage licenses.
"What harm is it to you?"
Counterfeits devalue the real thing. It is harmful when the law imposes an untruth (that both-sex and single-sex unions are identical) on the people. Also, if issuing marriage licenses to counterfeit marriages results in harm to marriage by reducing the number of legitimate marriages, then it is bad for society. Family law has an impact on all of us.
"If marriage is so sacred, what about divorce, Kim Kardashian, television shows like 'The Bachelor'?"
I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who is vocal about preserving marriage who supports the cheapening of marriage or likes the high divorce rate. But you know, our objections were met with the standard "change the channel or click off the television if you don't like it!", which was ignoring our point. We also hate divorce, but the fact that a significant number of people choose to end their involvement in a particular marriage (often, they go on to another marriage) does not mean that another kind of union should be recognized as marriage. We also hate sham marriages perpetrated by heterosexuals. However, why would the occurrence of one kind of mockery we don't like mean it is okay for the state to enshrine an entirely new kind of mockery into state practice?
"What’s the big deal? Marriage doesn’t mean anything anymore anyway - it’s just a piece of paper."
If it doesn't mean anything anymore, why are you trying so hard to change the laws so that a same-sex union will be called marriage? But you are on to something when you suggest that marriage isn't esteemed the way it used to be. For example, marriage used to be considered by most people a lifelong commitment that involved a division of labor, and the institution in which people lived together, had sex, and raised children. Now, much to dismay of the very same people who are trying to preserve marriage in the legal sense, society encourages... divorce if one spouse is unhappy or no longer "in love" regardless of whether they have children or not; husbands and wives to both work outside the home, share the domestic chores, and to have other people (day care workers, for one) raise their children; shacking up; sex outside of marriage or any sort of relationships whatsoever; and having children regardless of marital status.
I seem to recall Leftists, including homosexuality advocates, having had something to do with a lot of those shifts. It is interesting that now they say "What's the big deal about marriage anyway?" They're like an arsonist who burns down a house and then tells the property owner "You might as well sell your property. There's nothing on it."
Along the same lines, radical feminists have long insisted marriage is oppressive. Thanks to easy no-strings sex and punitive divorce settlements, many men are now claiming that marriage is miserable and oppressive for men. Yet most of those same people insist that "marriage" should be extended to same-sex couples. This doesn't make sense, because these people are claiming to be for "gay rights" but want to subject gays to something they consider oppressive.
"Get government out of the marriage business."
This is like when a robber demands $10,000 dollars from you, and you say no, so he then says "We'll compromise then – meet me halfway by giving me $5,000." It is tempting to "solve" the legislative and court fights by removing the issue entirely, but it isn't practical. The state has an interest in regulating marriage, in part because most marriages will involve citizens who have no say in the forming or continuing of the association (children). Also, if the state is going to get out of marriage, then it should have to get out of many probate and estate issues, alimony, and so forth. Also, men should no longer automatically be considered a baby's father simply because the baby was born to his wife.
Marriage has not been some sort of elaborate conspiracy to make homosexual people feel bad. I'm not trying to make homosexual people unhappy. However, I do not think that all of society should be reordered to coddle someone's feelings. Marriage was not arbitrarily created by the state. It is more likely that the state grew out of marriage. I truly believe it is better for society – which includes homosexual people – to distinguish, esteem, and regulate marriage. Also, marriage is sacred to me and can be recognized by the state, but not truly changed by the state. The activists do not stop to consider my feelings even as they ask me to reorder society to in an attempt to validate theirs.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I always welcome comments. Be aware that anything you write may be thoroughly analyzed and used in subsequent blog entries.