The Senate once again rejected the notion that an amendment banning gay marriage should be made to the constitution. I'm amazed that for the first time in a long time, a branch of the Federal government did not seize the opportunity to restrict freedom.
I'm not for gay marriage. Homosexuals simply cannot marry each other and it mean the same as marriage between a man and a woman. It's not Christian, but a law against it is just plain wrong. Marriage is a religious institution, and neither the federal, state, nor municipal governments have any business weighing in on it.
There are many churches that call themselves "Christian," yet I do not believe that they are very much so. Supposing one of them should begin marrying men to men or women to women, I would disregard this practice just as I disregard that church's practice of auto-castration and mandatory convulsions during revivals.
Just because two gay people have a ceremony and call themselves "married," I do not have to accept that they are married in the same way as my wife and I. It's like when my son calls himself a pirate. It's kind of cute, how foolish he is to think that he's a pirate, but no matter how often he grunts "Arrrrgggg!" and slashes the dog with his plastic sword (and, unfortunately, digs for treasure in the backyard)--he's not a pirate. Supposing I should tell a real pirate that my son thinks that he's a pirate. What should that pirate say? (Other than "Shiver me timbers!") He'd probably laugh, steal my wallet and wedding ring, and walk me off the plank. Consider the movie Dodgeball. That guy dressed and talked like a pirate--but everyone knew that he wasn't a pirate. Let him pretend, if it makes him happy.
The real issue is one of legal status, of the ease with which estates are passed from spouse to spouse and other legal issues. That's really where the state gets into "marriage." I cannot see why two homosexuals devoted to each other should not be able to enjoy the same legal rights in this sense. Besides, acknowledging such rights would not be tantamount to acknowledging the sanctimony of gay marriage.
If you're really going to go against gay marriage, then you should also go against any marriage done in a Las Vegas chapel (witnessed by Elvis, of course) or by a mere justice of the peace. If you're going to lay down the God card and say that marriage is sacred, and that the sacredness of marriage ought to be protected by the violent capacity of the state, then you must also support violence against those who marry outside of churches. Heck, you should also seek amendments to prohibit any marriage outside of your particular denomination: since yours is the only true church. Baptists should oppose Catholic marriages. Catholics should oppose Lutheran marriages. And everyone should oppose Heaven's Gate marriages.
Since I am at least nominally a Catholic, should I promote legislation against Protestant churches, for they are an affront to the Holy and Apostolic Church? Should I design a bill to forbid the Amish from calling themselves Christians because I am offended by their lifestyle and excessively priced furniture and chicken?
The bottom line is this: If marriage is indeed sacred (and I believe that it is), then the government's position on it is irrelevent. In fact, any governmental position on it is flat out tyrannical. Marriage falls under the jurisdiction of De Civitate Dei. No amendment is necessary, just as no law forbidding my son from calling himself a pirate is necessary.
Does Mark know about International Talk Like A Pirate Day?
ReplyDeletehttp://talklikeapirate.com/
Marriage may appear to be a religious institution but in fact it is a civil affair. The idea of marriage (husbands and wives) predates organized religion and certainly Christianity. No matter whether you are married by a justice of the peace or a minister, you still need a marriage certificate, issued by the government, in order to be legally married. Those ministers still say, “by the power invested in me…” don’t they? People of the same sex do not need to be married to jointly own property whether it is a house or a bank account. The only legal advantage (in terms of the government) I can think of to being married might be when it comes to filing an income tax return. Those filing a joint return may at times enjoy a slight advantage when it comes to rendering unto Caesar. Actually it is private institutions such as health care providers and pension funds that are more concerned about who qualifies as a spouse. Could it be their lobbyists and not the moral right that is pushing for a constitutional amendment?
ReplyDeleteGolf Guy:
ReplyDeleteI don't recall anyone ever taking a secular approach to argue against gay marriage. Well done, for you're the first (as far as I'm concerned).
However, just because a license is required for "marriage" does not make it a prerogative of the state. The state also requires me to have a permit to build a deck on my own property. It hasn't that right, but it assumes it because it has millions of guns to my several.
Ministers must say "by the power invested in me by the state of whatever," but you don't really believe that a state can actually invest someone with the power to perform a religious sacrement, do you?
There are probably at least 10 million people (atheists, agnostics, and general nonbelievers) in the U.S. that would disagree with you about marriage being a sacrament. While the church sanctifies marriage through a spiritual rite, what are the nonbelievers to do if they want to get married? Perhaps the answer would be to abandon marriage as a legal act and all marriages would fall under the category of “common law”. Now this brings us back to Adam and Steve. Adam and Steve could just live together. Couples do it all the time. They could just declare themselves common law spouses. But, alas, that is not their desire because it is not their agenda. What homosexuals want is a Miracle on 34th Street. In that classic movie Kris Kringle must prove that he is Santa Clause. He does so by having a branch of the government, the judicial system (with the help of the U.S. postal system), authenticate him as Santa Clause. Homosexuals want the same governmental validation. Not of their marriage per se’ but their way life. They hope to achieve this by having their marriages legally recognized and through juxtaposition have their unnatural life styles also recognized as socially acceptable.
ReplyDeleteMy question regarding homosexual behavior is a simple one. Is homosexual behavior innate or learned? If it is innate then why hasn’t the laws of evolution eliminated this group of people who cannot reproduce with others of the same sexual orientation? If it is a learned behavior then from whom do they learn the behavior?
Golf Guy:
ReplyDeleteYour response was thoughtful and correct. It goes without saying that non-believers would object to the idea that marriage is sacred (i.e. holy). For them, baptism is a game with water, and communion is merely refreshment time—though with tasteless crackers and diluted rosé (you’d think that Jesus would taste better).
The faithful, however, believe that marriage is a sacred rite established in the book of Genesis by God between a man (Adam) and a woman (Steve), who are then to complement each other—remember, Adam was lonely—and be fruitful and multiply. Note that when Adam and Eve were married, no state license or any action/recognition at all was necessary. This was, admittedly, when the world was perfect. I would be remiss not to mention that the one truly perfect age in world history was one without a government. Therefore, the religious, the sacred marriage happens regardless of the state’s permission, acceptance, or even existence.
I agree with you that, to homosexuals, being allowed to marry carries symbolic weight in the form of recognition and validation of lifestyle. It might make them feel mighty good about themselves, but would them calling themselves “married” really mean that you or I recognize the validity of their relationship? Of course not. It’s like how George W. Bush is free to go on and on about how much he loves liberty, but you and I know that he’s full of crap. Since he clearly does not respect liberty, should the violence of government be employed against him to prohibit him forcibly from declaring himself a friend of freedom?
The government should get out of this completely. Just because certain Christians are offended that homosexuals might legally call themselves husband and husband (?) doesn’t meant that they really are married. God knows that the law is not sacred and that it holds no power over His will. Consider the fact that this government supports the slaughter of innocent children. Although the United States Supreme Court says that women have the right to contract assassins (i.e. doctors) to murder their in-utero babies, we know that no such right exists and the very idea is abhorrent in the eyes of the Lord. Similarly, the state can recognize a sham of a marriage between to homosexuals, and it won’t matter a damn to us. We’ll know the truth—and so will Adam and Steve.
There is, however, one great problem of my comparing abortion and gay marriage. Abortion harms innocent people. Gay marriage harms no one. The fact that it offends us is not sufficient for us to call upon the state’s coercive powers. Otherwise, I would have to send Delta against Fox’s American Idol, for it’s an affront to any true music lover.
As for the nature of homosexuality—is it innate or learned—I don’t know. I tend to believe that my heterosexuality is innate. I remember a funny feeling (like when climbing the rope during gym class) that first time that I saw a Playboy magazine (third grade, in Roan Donahue’s tree house—I remember it all vividly). It felt pretty innate to me. As for nature’s failure to select such people for extinction, I cannot speak for Darwin. However, there are a plethora of disorders and such that recur not only in our species but in others that haven’t resulted in extinction.
To me, the issue is one of liberty. We all were born to be free, and we should enjoy that freedom so long as we do not harm others. That’s the only justification for a government (and it’s still a flawed one, in many respects). Therefore, a government exists only to secure my rights to life, liberty, and property. Since two gay men getting married is not a threat to my life, liberty, or property, then the government has no business moving against them.
Read
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mises.org/story/2209