Saturday, October 25, 2008

Gay Marriage is Wrong, Again

I love this topic because it gets so many people's pretty pink panties in a wad. You know who you are! From the editors at National Review, in the latest issue (quoted in full, as it is not available to non-subscribers):

The Courts vs. Marriage

In 2005, Connecticut enacted “civil unions,” designed to be marriage in everything but name for same-sex couples. We are not sure what good purpose is served by such laws. The reason governments recognize marriage in the first place is to promote the well-being of children in the setting most conducive to their flourishing. There may or may not be great value in other types of relationships: those between friends, or heterosexual lovers, or relatives who take care of each other. But why should the government grant recognition to one subset of those non-marital relationships — those between people of the same sex who are sexually involved? What goal does such recognition serve? Other, that is, than the legitimization of homosexual conduct?

But Connecticut, at least, decided the matter democratically. Those people who objected could try to persuade their fellow citizens to repeal the law.

Now Connecticut’s supreme court has decided that marriage in all but name is not good enough, and imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Like other courts, the Connecticut court treated the legislature’s attempt to meet gay activists halfway as a reason to throw out the compromise and hand the activists a victory. If the legislature was willing to recognize same-sex unions as though they were marriages, the court reasoned, why not call them marriages too? Opponents of same-sex “marriage” should be warned: Thanks to the courts, compromise is now folly.

The courts have so far imposed same-sex marriage on Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California. The next step will be to force other states to recognize same-sex unions solemnized in those jurisdictions. The Defense of Marriage Act protects states that wish to maintain their marriage laws as they are. Senator Obama wants to repeal that act, however, and the Democratic platform comes out for repeal — a position to the left of any previous Democratic presidential candidate. When Obama says that he opposes same-sex marriage, his words mean nothing.

A pity, then, that Senator McCain has not raised the issue. In the vice-presidential debate, Governor Palin even suggested that the tickets agree on same-sex marriage. We are on track to have same-sex marriage from sea to shining sea, without the people ever authorizing the idea. The public will be consulted as little as possible, and only after the fact.


That should make my pro-non-traditional-marriage friends happy. The tactics of the left: Using the courts to shove special-rights status of victim groups down the throats (I almost wrote "up the backsides") of Regular Americans.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have never heard a pro gay marriage supporter address the question of polygamy. If there is no need for a couple to be a man and woman, then from a logical perspective there is no need for a marriage to be limited to two people of any persuasion. Why not have three or even forty people in a marriage? There are other unusual marriages that could take place between consenting adults. What about a 50 year old man and his 25 year old daughter? Can two gay sisters marry? Are there any pro gay marriage supporters out there who will address this?

Polymath said...

Exactly my point, anonymous. And what about inter-species marriage? According to the left, non-human animals also have rights.

Smallholder said...

Anonymous and Polymath,

You both suffer from, ones suspects, willfull ignorance.

The issue of distinguishing between dyad marriage and plural has been addressed. Allowing gays to get married and assume the over one thousand non-child rights does not require any additional legislation. Adding a third party to inheritance, leases, contracts, financial transactions, and medical direction would be impossible without tremendous legislative change. It would also create incredible burdens on third parties - "I'm glad that was hired, please offer health insurance to my six wives and thirty children."

The incest issue is rather silly as well - are there large numbers of incestuous relationships out there asking for rights? I doubt it.

Equating two people who are in a loving homosexual relationship with incest is revealing of your bigotry. Since you feel that both are morally abhorrent, you see that analogy is apt.

One suspects that you are not amenable to logic on this issue - "gays, like married sisters, are icky..."

Polymath, your interspecies thing dissappoints me. It is just plain ig'n'nt. Animals cannot give consent and even Peter Singer wouldn't argue that they could.

Smallholder said...

Arguing against the rights of minorities being protected from legislative majorities by the courts is a dangerous thing.

1) If you are really making that argument intellectual consistency requires you to reject Brown v. Board (overturning legislative will in order to desegregate schools) and Heller v. D.C. (overturning legislative wills to protect the right to own a gun).

2) Majorities change. Opposition to gay marriage is declining. The trend in America is almost always towards tolerance and in the very near future majorities will support gay equality. Note that McCain has not made an issue of icky gays like Bush did in 2000 and 2004. Doing so would lose more votes than it would gain. One suspects that is the real reason so many anti-gay activists support a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is because they know that the tide has turned and are trying to lock in their beliefs for the future.

3) If you make the argument for the will of the majority, are you willing to accept the majority's decision if the majority disagrees with you? Like, I dunno, Roe?

When the legislative majority comes around, I suspect anti-gay activists will simply ditch the "will of the majority" rhetoric - because that isn't their real issue. I have yet to see a case made against gay marriage that didn't boil down to "My Jesus says gays are icky."

Substitute "My gut" or "My Flying Spaghetti Monster" for Jesus if it makes you feel better.

Polymath said...

I am illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

That being said, there are weirdos who want to marry animas, or at least have "relations" with them. I seem to remember a story about a man swimming with a young male dolphin...

I do not like playing moral equivalency games, which is another leftist tactic. A racial minority is not the same as a minority based in behavior.

What I find abhorent is not gays, but the use of gays-as-vitims by the left to promote non-traditional leftist agenda through judicial, rather than legislative, action.

What laws that remain against homosexual acts, sodomy, etc. are seldom enforced, if at all. Many have been repealed. Homosexual relationships are tolerated and accepted by most people. But a behavior-based minority should not be made "special" through judicial activism.

My Flying Spaghetti Monster says gays are not icky - judges who grant them special status are.