We've heard of pledges politicians have been asked to sign that affirm, among other things, the bride+groom core of marriage.
We know marriage neutering advocates would never sign a pledge like that. However, they should be asked to sign a different marriage pledge. This one should be a pledge to:
1) Oppose with statements, votes, and vetoes any attempt to a) provide legal recognition to polygamous or incestuous marriages; b) lower the age consent; or c) grant person status to machines or nonhuman animals.
2) Support with statements, votes, and votoes the rights of a) clergy, religious venues, and religious organizations not to perform or host wedding ceremonies in violations of their principles; and b) the rights of parents to teach their children that a marriage only exists when bride and a groom are involved.
Since so many marriage neutering advocates publicly scoff (to the point of being bullies) at the idea that neutering marriage can be in any way associated with polygamy, incest, pedophilia, or bestiality, and since they have said "churches won't be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies", they should have no problems signing such a pledge, right?
Of course, if they are willing to sign a pledge with the first point, they will be admitting that marriage should be defined one way and not another, and that there isn't a fundamental right to marry or define it any way someone wants, since they would be opposing marriages (polygamous, incestuous) that have been historically recognized and are currently practiced and recognized in various parts of the world. They would be admitting that it is okay to place restrictions on marriage licensing for the sake of good public policy over personal desires.
We know marriage neutering advocates would never sign a pledge like that. However, they should be asked to sign a different marriage pledge. This one should be a pledge to:
1) Oppose with statements, votes, and vetoes any attempt to a) provide legal recognition to polygamous or incestuous marriages; b) lower the age consent; or c) grant person status to machines or nonhuman animals.
2) Support with statements, votes, and votoes the rights of a) clergy, religious venues, and religious organizations not to perform or host wedding ceremonies in violations of their principles; and b) the rights of parents to teach their children that a marriage only exists when bride and a groom are involved.
Since so many marriage neutering advocates publicly scoff (to the point of being bullies) at the idea that neutering marriage can be in any way associated with polygamy, incest, pedophilia, or bestiality, and since they have said "churches won't be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies", they should have no problems signing such a pledge, right?
Of course, if they are willing to sign a pledge with the first point, they will be admitting that marriage should be defined one way and not another, and that there isn't a fundamental right to marry or define it any way someone wants, since they would be opposing marriages (polygamous, incestuous) that have been historically recognized and are currently practiced and recognized in various parts of the world. They would be admitting that it is okay to place restrictions on marriage licensing for the sake of good public policy over personal desires.
Love this pledge, and I would sign it ... and I agree that the definition of marriage should be an expression of good public policy. And I believe it is good public policy to allow two committed people to accept lifelong responsibility for one another, and that two people doing so advances the interest of the state. I reject the notion that such benefit only occurs when those two people have procreative potential, and the state seems to agree with me as they are quite free and easy with the marriage licenses for the septuagenarians and death row inmates.
ReplyDeleteWhy just two? Are you a bigot?
DeleteBecause the spousal relationship - comprehensive, exclusive and reciprocal - can only exist between two people.
DeleteWhen A marries B, he can pledge to share everything has with B. And B can reciprocate.
No such pledge is possible when A wishes to marry B and C. At best, he can pledge to share some with B and some with C. And how would B and C reciprocate? The spousal relationship is not possible between 3 or more parties simultaneously.
SCOTUS has recognized the right to marriage at least 14 times prior to 'Windsor', going back to the 1800s. Why do you continue to make the contrary claim that marriage is not a fundamental right?
ReplyDeleteThat has usually, if not always, involved a direct freedom of association because cohabitation was now allowed in some places without a marriage license. It has always involved the ACTION of creating a sex-integrated union.
DeleteThen why do you continue to claim that there is not a fundamental right to marry, when SCOTUS has very clearly stated otherwise.
DeleteThere is a difference between being allowed to get together with someone and being allowed to get a state license with that person. That's why.
Delete