Some Gays and Lesbians Oppose Neutering of Marriage

...especially by judicial fiat.

I can only imagine the vitriol that must be spewed towards Doug Mainwaring, a self-identified gay man and co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots. Despite what some Leftists say, there is not even the slightest conflict between being a TEA or Tea Party member and being a homosexual person, as the Tea Party movement is focused on fiscal policy. He probably still gets attacks from ignorant people for that, but I'm sure he's getting attacked for his opinion pieces, like one that was printed in the Washington Post, "Why I Oppose Gay Marriage".



For the record, I do not oppose "gay marriage". My own marriage is quite gay... I'm very happy as a heterosexual man married to a heterosexual (and smokin' hot) woman with whom I am fundamentally compatible, so we get along very well. I do oppose the neutering of state marriage licenses. Now, on to Mainwaring. He takes a looked at the situation in Maryland (this was before the November 2012 vote), when petitions were signed against the neutering of marriage

The Washington Blade published the names and addresses of all petition signatories on its Web site. Many supporters of [neutering] marriage were stunned to find the names of family members, friends and neighbors.

Yes, we are your family, friends and neighbors. I wonder if any marriage neutering advocates were tracked down and harassed by customers, bosses, coworkers, neighbors, family members, etc.? You know it happened to people who believe the state's description of marriage should be in agreement with humanity's.

While only 56,650 certified signatures were necessary to get the measure on the ballot, more than 160,000 signatures were collected and delivered to the Maryland Secretary of State.

After a certain point, the Board of Elections stopped counting. Of the 109,313 signatures certified by the board, only a little more than 53 percent of the signers were Republican (58,470). Nearly 37 percent were Democrats (40,046), and the remaining 10 percent were unaffiliated (10,645) and a smattering of Libertarians (112) and Green Party members (40).

The petitions made it clear to everyone: It’s not just Republicans who object to this legislation. This is a common, mainstream concern.

Yes. Remember that Proposition 8 passed in California with the very same vote that elected President Obama.

The problem with what happened in Annapolis this past year, resulting in the law that is now up for a vote, is that the governor and legislators rejected the idea of considering civil unions as a reasonable alternative.

A case can be made for civil unions. I can't support them as long as they are used as Trojan Horses to neuter marriage.

A signature on a petition actually says very little. Many attribute homophobic motives to the signers. In some cases, that may be true. I am certain that the vast majority are others who, like me, simply view “marriage” as an immutable term that can only apply to heterosexuals. It’s undeniable that, from age to age, marriage has been humanity’s greatest success and source of prosperity, crossing all cultures and religions. We shouldn’t mess with it.

Exactly!

Full disclosure: I am gay. A few years ago, I was on the other side of the fence on this topic. But the more I read, thought, investigated and attempted to defend my position, the more I realized that I couldn’t.

Hey, look at that! Why didn't see major news outlets citing that and saying anything about momentum and the inevitability of the bride+groom marriage license requirement? The Pink Lady would call this gay man "anti-gay" for his position on marriage in their news articles, not just their opinion pieces. Clearly, people can oppose the neutering of state marriage licenses without being "anti-gay", but the marriage neutering advocates use their positions in places like The Pink Lady to push their agenda through biased labeling.

I feel very strongly that gay relationships should be supported by society. I have grown convinced, however, that the term “marriage” should not be altered or adjusted in any way.

Let’s face it: We should not attempt to force into an old construct something that was never meant for same-sex partnerships. We should welcome the opportunity to christen a new tradition, beginning a new chapter in the history of gays and lesbians within American society. Same-sex relationships are different from heterosexual relationships, and gay men and lesbians need to accept that and design their own tradition.

I think many, many people could agree with that. The state did not create marriage, it has only described it. That is why we have the concept of "common law" marriage. The state has an interest in licensing marriage and having certain restrictions on that licensing. The same interest is simply not there with a brideless or groomless couple, or triad, or quad. Thousands of years of worldwide history have demonstrated what marriage is. If same-sex couples consistently form lasting cohabitation relationships that are widely recognized and honored on a social level, they will have a new institution and a case can be made for having state-issued licenses for that institution.

It is my strong suspicion that while some same-sex couples are looking at this situation apolitically and just want external validation of their relationship and an easy way to obtain reciprocal spousal benefits, there are Leftists who are marriage neutering advocates because their agenda to is deconstruct the family and all nongovernmental, non labor-union institutions, and destroy all semblance of Judeo-Christian morals, values, and ethics. They and their ideological ancestors tried destroying marriage (with much success) with things like shacking up, declaring marriage oppressive to women, and dismissing marriage as "just a piece of paper". But that only carried them so far. So now, with a straight face, they insist that the thing that is "just a piece of paper" and "oppressive to women" is vitally important for two lesbians. This is why, when pressed on the issue, many will say government should get out of marriage entirely (or they wouldn't mind if that happened) and government should not favor married couples over unmarried couples in any way. They want to destroy marriage, and if removing the bride+groom core is the way to do it, so be it. The want to force people to treat brideless and groomless pairings the same as marriage, and would use nationwide neutering of marriage to smash anything distinguishing sex-inclusive relationships from those that exclude one of the sexes. If they accomplish that, then they will encourage or at least not resist any push to remove government recognition of marriage.

More recently, Mainrwaring wrote at The Public Discourse "Same-Sex Marriage: We're Playing Chess, Not Checkers":

A few days ago I testified against pending same-sex marriage legislation in Minnesota’s Senate Judiciary and House Civil Law Committees.

The atmosphere at these events (I’ve also testified elsewhere) seems tinged with unreality—almost a carnival-like surrealism. Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.

Pure sophistry is pitted against reason. Reason is losing.

Right. We are now in the Age of Narcissism and Feelings, which is what has allowed those who want to neuter marriage to get as far as they have.

Our nation’s individual state legislatures and courts—including the Supreme Court— need to apply the brakes. Now.

As in chess, the unintended consequences deserve sound consideration.

Leftists rarely worry about unintended consequences. They simply want to do something to make things "equal" or "fair" to make themselves feel good. Never mind if everyone, including the people they were trying to help, end up worse off as a result.

Genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness, which suggests that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had same-sex marriages in mind as they penned their magnificent giant leap forward for humanity. While this situation is highly unlikely, those who selfishly seek additional “rights” for themselves have found their justification in the penumbra they now sense surrounding legitimate civil rights.

Same-sex marriage will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.

He recognizes that previous attacks on marriage are what has brought us here.

This isn’t the first time our society has undefined marriage. No-fault divorce, instituted all across our country, sounded like a good idea at the time. Its unintended consequence was that it changed forever the definition of marriage from a permanent relationship between spouses to a temporary one. Sadly, children became collateral damage in the selfish pursuits of adults.

Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.

If two men can get "married", then marriage, as an institution, can't be about children. It can only be about the feelings of the adults. And when those feelings aren't there, then there is no moral obligation to remain married.

Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation.

Nowhere on any marriage license application in any state are the applicants asked, “Do you love each other?” Yet this is the basis on which same-sex marriage proponents seek to change our laws. Is the state really in the business of celebrating our romantic lives?

The mantra I heard repeatedly in Minnesota was that “marriage is about love, commitment, and responsibility.” But these three things are not the state’s interests in marriage. Marriage, from the state’s perspective, is about kids. Period. That’s the reason the institution exists. We should tremble at and fear the notion of undoing it.

Now why does a TEA Party care so much? Here's why. As we are doing financially with the immoral national debt and budgeting, we are doing socially with relationships and marriage: We are creating an unsustainable environment for our children and grandchildren.

For a nation that has no trouble selfishly creating a seventeen-trillion-dollar (and growing) deficit it will soon hand off to its children and grandchildren, perhaps this is asking too much. But for the sake of all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of self-fulfillment. We can do better than that.

If marriage is neutered nationwide, and the predictions I have made previously about the negative consequences turn out to be right, it isn't like we'll go back and reverse the mistake. First of all, the Leftists who have perpetrated this will blame anything but the neutering marriage: latent lingering homophobia, pollution in the Congo, astrological readings, George W. Bush... anything. "Can't go back now, must move 'forward'" would be what they'd say. Who cares if that only takes us further down a perilous ravine?