Marriage for everyone, by everyone

NOTE: I think its a good idea to bring this up again, as the Cultural Gestapo is getting ready to try again to put themselves in charge of who can and cannot marry, as opposed to the will of the people.

This sad display shows a gay legislator getting upset that special rights have not yet been conferred on their group when it comes to marriage. The failure at co-opting “alternative marriage” for any political benefit continues to make the Left very unhappy. Good.

In San Francisco, a high stakes gay marriage trial is set to begin. No matter how many times they do it, I never get tired of saying it. “If you believe your rights can be granted to you be courts, your rights can be taken away by courts.” You and I do not live in the same universe when some court can come along and tell you what you can and can’t do. Freddie Mercury died with a wedding ring on. Did he need anyone to tell him what he couldn’t do? Ruh roh!

I’ve discussed this matter at length, but usually only in response to a bevy of Heavy Breathers talking about how “intolerant” anyone who disagrees with them is. Here is the brute fact. If you advocate for gay marriage, and only for the introduction of gay marriage as a right, you are a bigot and a hypocrite.

Let me make this perfectly clear. Civil marriage should be what an individual state says it is, according to the will of its people. I don’t care what that will is, and I see no way that Federalist Extremists can fit it through the chasm they call the Commerce Clause. What my interest is is in pointing out the hypocrites and Cultural Gestapo who want to take that right away from the people. You’re all good Germans as long as you recognize what is and is not politically correct.

At the same time, as Dick Cheney famously said, “people ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to,” pretty much sets Darth Vader far ahead of the Leftists and Heavy Breathers who want to preach to others about “civil rights” when they aren’t especially civil and they especially aren’t right. What “Gay Marriage Exclusivists” want is to take that will away from you, the citizen. And then, they’re going to tell you what is, and is not, acceptable. Anything else is deviant, except their flavor of the moment.

polygamy

One of the weakest arguments out there is that this approach is somehow unique or my own, when it is the only consistent argument for the definition of marriage. Either society has the right to decide what marriage is, or every individual has the right to decide what marriage is for themselves. Anything else is muddled thinking, motivated by sluggishness, denial, sloth or just plain bad attitude.

Following Vermont’s passage of Gay Marriage last April, this reporter wrote

“Who knows but that the Vermont Supreme Court, if the question arises, might find it serves no legitimate government objective there to deny marriage to close relatives and three or more persons. (What’s the point of not letting two sisters marry if two other women can marry?) What an irony if this law intended to provide “equality” in marriage were ruled discriminatory.”

Following passage of Proposition 8, LA Times columnist Robert Epstein wrote

“Nearly 1,000 cultures around the world allow some form of polygamy, either officially or by nonregulation; in Senegal, nearly half the marriages are polygamous. In the U.S., both the Libertarian Party and the American Civil Liberties Union have opposed laws prohibiting polygamy.

Gays are correct in expressing outrage over the fact that official recognition, the power to make health decisions, inheritance rights and tax benefits, have long been granted to only one kind of committed partnership in the United States. But wanting their own committed relationships to be shoe-horned into an old institution makes little sense, especially given the poor, almost pathetic performance of that institution in recent decades. Half of first marriages fail in the U.S., after all, as do nearly two-thirds of second marriages. Is that really a club you want to join?”

Now, I’m confident but not immune to the cacophony of straw men arguments whenever this subject is discussed. The Heavy Breathers emote all over the place, sliming everything up, until you just want to scream “for the love of god! just stop! whatever you want!” But you will be contributing to the loss of your free will, your rights, the rights of society for self-determination and just plain progress if you do.

1/3 of Americans are supportive of Gay Marriage. Another 1/3 of Americans are open to almost all other forms of marriage such as polygamy (more than one partner), and endogamy (marriage only within certain groups in society), as long as it doesn’t violate other existing laws, such as those that protect minors.

And yet, gay marriage fails vote after vote. Why? Well, you might say, that’s because the people who are for gay marriage and those who are for almost all other forms of marriage are the same folks, and they make up that 1/3 of society. Ah, but they are not the same people.

A little history…

Is it not a basic tenet of same sex marriage advocates that marriage is about romance and sex, and that’s why two people, AND ONLY TWO PEOPLE, are qualified to be married? Their argument, all along, has been that gay marriage is just like classic marriage. All other forms of marriage deserve to be stigmatized and only gays are deserving of this privilege extension. Its an anachronistic argument, that reaches back before the founding of this country. The basis for such an argument goes all the way back to before the Protestant Reformation.

The Protestant Reformation, to which the United States partly owes it creation, made the derogation of marriage as a purely religious, as opposed to civic, obligation. Virtually all of the leaders of the Reformation denounced the idea of marriage as a scripturally-sanctioned church sacrament. The Reformation leaders wanted to take marriage beyond the sacrament, and Calvin called it a union of “pious persons”.  While it was still a covenant, it would go beyond “love” and “romance”, to extend into virtually every significant human relationship. How strange then, that Gay Marriage Exclusivists have not advanced beyond the Reformation.

Feels a bit like Religious Theocracy from the dark ages to be told just what IS and IS NOT marriage, doesn’t it? Then why would you listen to Gay Marriage Exclusivists when they do it?

If Gay Marriage Exclusivists were able to open their hearts and minds to the notion of EVERYONE being able to decide for themselves what marriage is, or allowing states to decide for themselves, instead of feeling justified in throwing out the vilest epithets, slander and lies for political gain, they could get what they say they are after. And the open minded, fair minded lot of citizens who are tired of listening to their ranting, just might be willing to let them join.

Unfortunately, what we have ended up with is a lot of people trying to escape their sense of shame dishonestly by constructing elaborate moral frameworks that allow them to parade their virtue and their lavish repentance without any real inconvenience to themselves, while simultaneously indulging in self-righteousness by condemning others for their impenitent evil. That’s the bad version of religion – the sort of religion Jesus came to dismantle.


About Terry Crowley