"A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman." - Associated Press 03/14/05
This argument has been framed, for political purposes, as a civil rights issue. The argument is that a group of American citizens are being discriminated against, that they are being prohibited from doing something that all other American citizens are permitted to do.
This argument is false.
Any man, whether he enjoys sex with women, men, dogs, or electronic devices, is legally permitted to marry any woman, whether she enjoys sex with men, women, dogs, or electronic devices. The man must be 18 years of age of older. Likewise, the woman must be 18 years of age or older. It is a legal contract that, if honored by both parties, benefits society as a whole.
How does it benefit society as a whole? A family is defined, not as a man and woman, or a man and his dog, or a woman and her cats, but as a father, mother, and the children they produce. The assumption is that a married man and woman will produce children and then, by virtue of being bound together for life, they will raise these children together. The children will then grow up to become adult members of this same society. Without this function being served the society as a whole will cease to exist, falling apart year over year, as the population plunges and the few resulting children are raised in chaotic, unstructured and unsupervised environments.
The arguments surrounding gay marriage are in no way connected to marriage. They are political smoke-screens. All adult citizens, without regard to race, religion, sex or national origin, in fact, without regard to sexual preference, are permitted to marry. But they must marry one, and only one, member of the opposite sex. Each and every citizen is equally limited under this constraint. Marriage makes no mention of whom the two marriage partners prefer to have sex with.
The political circus-masters respond to this by arguing that homosexuals are discriminated against because "they are not permitted to marry the one they love." But there is nothing about love in the laws surrounding marriage. The idea that a marriage is simply about two people loving each other is wrong. It is an ideal, and a Western ideal at that. There is nothing in the marital contract about love, which can come and go and come again over time. Love is a feeling. Marriage is a commitment enforced by law, a contract.
In the 1970s Americans accepted the argument that it is better for a marriage to be dissolved if either party ceases to love the other than for them to remain together with one or both persons now unhappy. Conservative critics argued that this change in the marital contract would devastate the American family. 'Progressives' argued that it would not hurt the family or society and that divorce would not increase as a result of this change in the view of marriage and family.
Divorce skyrocketed.
The Progressives responded by simply changing the definition of family to mean virtually anything, or virtually nothing, depending on point of view.
With the skyrocketing divorce rate came a new problem: broken homes - large numbers of children with only one parent who were neglected and virtually raising themselves. Crime skyrocketed shortly after the definitions of marriage and family were changed to suit the socialist views of the Progressives.
The Progressives blamed the rise in juvenile crime on guns, which they tried to ban. Then they attacked anyone who dared to use the term 'broken home,' calling them bigots.
Conservatives began blaming the rise in juvenile crime on the fathers who had been divorced and alienated from their families. Over 75% of all divorces were being filed by the woman of the family. Over 98% of all custody disputes were settled in favor of the woman, effectively removing the father from the family by court order.
Conservatives and 'Progressives' alike agreed that the solution to these newly created problems was to begin taking as much money as possible from the absent fathers and transferring it by force to the divorcing mother. An entire court system, which answers to no higher power, was established to handle this growing and highly lucrative caseload. It was ironically named 'the family court.'
Now, having successfully convinced the American People to redefine marriage and family to mean virtually anything, and to remove all legal enforcement of the marriage contract, the Progressives are once again seeking to redefine this vital unit of society.
The argument is not whether citizens who prefer to engage in homosexual sexual relations have the same rights to marriage as those who prefer heterosexual relations. They already do. This is indisputable. The argument is whether the American People can be either convinced or forced to permit another redefinition of marriage and family and accept whatever consequences result.
I am of the opinion that the American People will be forced to accept this despite each and every state voicing majority opposition to it. The consequences will be substantial. And as it becomes increasingly apparent how severe the consequences are, anyone who dares to point out that all of the changes to the definition of marriage and family are responsible for these consequences will simply be attacked. The Progressives will not permit any reversal of their mistakes.
Those who like to describe themselves as 'Progressives' are people who believe themselves to be both intellectually as well as morally superior to everyone else. They believe that their views will lead to a better tomorrow. They are highly intolerant of any other view, regarding disagreement as a personal attack. Unfortunately, they are also people who never look back, never learn one single useful lesson from history other than how to manipulate the common people into submission. Never do they admit their mistakes. Never do the words "I was wrong" escape from their mouths. They loudly proclaim their disdain for religion, yet religiously embrace a faith in their own supreme infallibility and godlike superiority. They charge unbelievers with heresy and excommunicate them from their universities, newspapers, and public schools.
The Founding Fathers, the inventors of our civil rights, were not Progressives. They were white, heterosexual, male Christians. Their views are not tolerated or understood by the self-proclaimed 'civil rights activists' who embrace the religious and political views of The Progressives. This is why so much of what they do in the name of civil rights ultimately relies on the destruction of those same civil rights. We, The People, are simply in their way and so must have our rights destroyed for the lesser good. The end result is the loss of all our freedom.
The end result of this particular religious crusade shall be the total loss of marriage and family. It will render the concept meaningless and the law will cease to acknowledge it at all, as endless lawsuits are filed demanding that any conceivable variation be legally recognized.
You have read this article with the title Gay Marriage. You can bookmark this page URL https://thebohemianbunny.blogspot.com/2005/03/gay-marriage.html. Thanks!
