Tuesday, March 26, 2013


This is another one of these conversations we ought not even need to have.
And before my social conservative readers start thinking that I'm going to come down totally on your side, think again. Most of you guys' arguments are based on religious belief. You are aware, are you not, that the enemy in this current conflict is  bunch of religious nutbars who want to encode their beliefs into law? And the "it isn't natural, two members of the same sex don't "fit" argument, well, just as it's Happy Hour somewhere on the globe, it's the "happy spot" somewhere on the human body. If this wasn't true, homosexuality would be impossible.
But also, don't let the foregoing give you false hope, my gay-activist readers. My objections to "gay marriage" are based on far more solid ground.
The basics of the case being argued are that Californians, after being told by their State judicial system that an official definition of marriage being the "union of one man and one woman" violated the State constitution; then overwhelmingly voted to amend the State constitution to reflect just that. Activists then brought suit to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals alleging that the amendment violated the 14th Amendment in that it denied gays who would marry "the full protection" of law. The 9th ruled the amendment unconstitutional, and California appealed to the Supeme Court. The activists - having eagerly anticipated this - appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, knowing that if the SCOTUS upheld the appeal, it would most likely mandate recognizing "gay marriage" nationwide. And now, here we are.
I am not about to rag on two dudes who love each other and want to live together. But "marriage" has been commonly understood in every culture on Earth to mean a man and a woman. (Sometimes a man and several women and more rarely several men and a woman or several men and several women, but show me a culture where two members of the same sex have been able to take vows to love each other, and I'll show you a culture that is either extinct, on the border of extinction, and/or is stuck in the Stone Age.)
It's true there are recipes for food that call for marination to "allow the flavors to marry".  There are drinks and goodies called "a marriage of sweet and savory" or some such. But worldwide and throughout history, formal marriage has meant a male and a female. 
So, I posit that anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, has the right to marry. All they need do is find someone of the opposite sex, and get married. 
This entire "gay marriage" debacle is the product of a Leftist effort to gain control of the language and therefore the overall debate. This is clearly shown in the Leftist slogan: "Gay, straight, black or white, marriage is a civil right!"
No it isn't. 
You can't marry your sister, anywhere in this country ever; even if both of you are incapable of having kids and even if you "love each other".  And in most places you can't marry your first cousin either. And in many cases even a second cousin is a degree of sonsanguinity too damn close. Are the "civil rights" of kissin' cousins being violated?
But the appeals of the "gay marriage" crowd are not based in law, nor are they based in fact, but rather in emotion. Kids being raised by adoptive gay couples (or by a gay person who has divorced a spouse of a legitamate marriage who has custody of the kid and is raising the kid with his or her "life partner") get trotted out and, not understandng what all this is about and being confused by the maelstrom they find themselves thrown into, and plead - usually reading from a script - for the "rights" of their "parents".
This "marriage" debate is - per the Constitution - a State issue. (It is only Federal in the case of the "Defense of Marriage Act" which states that the Federal government will not recognize, for Federal purposes, a "marriage" that consists of anything other than the union of one man and one woman.)
The California amendment, moreover was passed in the most left-leaning State in the Union. A minority of activists have now convinced TWO Federal courts to IGNORE the 10th Amendment and are trying to toss out the will of the People of California using a gimcrack aluminum-siding interpretation of part of the 14th Amendment.
The radcal Left is using the homosexual community to try to blow a hole open in the Constitution. This is about far, far more than "gay marriage".
The Supreme Court should vacate the ruling of the 9th Circuit and end this dangerous nonsense. This case was brought by a cabal of Statists who are using misguided, uninformed fools to help them get yet another part of that troublesome Constitution out of their way.   

No comments:


Blog Archive