I’ve got it. Let’s just say that all unborn humans are homosexual — or at least could be homosexual — and then maybe they’ll also enjoy equal protection under the law.
No? Hmmm, but I thought we wanted “liberty and freedom” for all? Oh, it’s all, but not everyone. Or is it everyone but not all? I’m confused.
Well, anyway, I’m sure you’ve heard the Exalted Ones on the Supreme Court have ruled that the federal government isn’t allowed to deny marriage benefits to gay couples. Also, in a separate decision, the High Priests, the Glorious Deities, the Chosen Prophets of the High Court decided that the people arguing to defend Proposition 8 in California had “no standing” to do so, which means it is effectively overturned and gay marriage will be legal in California.
According to my newsfeed and Twitter and Hollywood and the media and pop culture and the president and politicians and most of my peers, this is a victory for the Constitution and equality. We should all dance in the streets and celebrate this “historic” win for “civil rights.” But, as is so often the case nowadays, I find myself in passionate disagreement with all of these groups. I’ll tell you why I oppose the Court’s decisions today. I’ll explain it in rational terms and I’ll justify my explanation with sound arguments. I’ll articulate my position as best I can, and I’ll do so in a coherent and logical fashion. It won’t matter, though. You’re either on board with gay marriage or you’re a slobbering bigot, according to modern society. I hate to spoil the twist ending, but I guarantee the comments under this post will be flooded with people who will ignore every single point I raise and instead construct a phantasmal strawman that they will then attack with ad hominem rantings and absurd hyperbole, in lieu of actually addressing the arguments I present. So be it. Here goes.
First, let me explain this whole “marriage is between a man and a woman” deal. That isn’t an arbitrary designation. It isn’t fueled by hate. It isn’t bigotry. It isn’t intolerance. It’s simply the recognition of an utterly unavoidable reality. The union between a man and woman, in principle, has a power and a capacity which no other union could ever possess. For this reason it certainly is not “equal” to any other union. It IS different. That’s not to assign labels of inferiority or superiority, that’s simply to point out an obvious distinction. A man and a woman can create other humans. They can form families. They can bring forth life. This difference is not an aberration or a matter of mere semantics. It’s something important, serious, profound. This relationship has a potential that is completely unique. It has attributes that can not be emulated by any other forms of human relationships. What does all this mean? It means it is NOT equal because equal, by definition, means “sameness.” Sameness, by definition, can not apply to two relationships that are characteristically separated by such a vast and remarkable distinction. Societies across the globe, until recently, have recognized the power of the male-female bond and appreciated the fact that the survival and propagation of civilization DEPENDS ENTIRELY on this bond. Again, no other relationship bears that responsibility. So, in light of this, most societies have afforded it a certain respect, both out of necessity and sound philosophy, and this bond was given a label: Marriage. Marriage is, or at least was, the CONTEXT in which families are FORMED and MAINTAINED. That’s why it’s important. That’s why it’s different. To “open up” the definition of marriage to include relationships — even relationships between individuals with strong emotional connections — that do not share these essential components, is to actively undermine the importance of the family. Undermining the family isn’t a byproduct, it’s the whole point. Proponents of this move have also completely failed to offer a new definition. They’ve made their opposition to the “traditional” one known, but they will not suggest an alternative. If there is no alternative, then they must publicly admit their intention to obliterate the institution, rather than “redefine” it. If they wish to keep the institution then they must explain where the new lines will be drawn and — importantly — why. Definitions require lines of distinction. The “old” version of marriage drew a clear, obvious, logical, purposeful, meaningful and objective line. What about the new? Is marriage simply a romantic agreement between two individuals who love each other? If so, that opens up a whole slew of alternate manifestations of marriage, which either leaves the definition so “open” as to fade it into oblivion, or else it requires the pioneers of this edited thing to begin making a thousand stipulations until, before long, they’re doing exactly what they accused traditional marriage advocates of doing, only they’re now doing it for increasingly arbitrary and superficial reasons.
I will never support any of this because I will never waver in my defense of the family. I believe this defense to be a rational, logical and biological imperative, but also, of course, a calling at the core of Christianity. A Christian who does not understand this, is a Christian who does not understand Christianity. The conception and birth of Christ literally sanctified the institution of the family, making it holy, and to turn our back on this fact for the sake of current political trends is to betray the Faith. Plain and simple.
Second, the Defense of Marriage act is a piece of legislation, supported overwhelmingly by both parties and signed into law by President Clinton (a rapid Republican if ever there was one), which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, for the purposes of deciding who gets certain federal benefits. It did not “outlaw” gay marriage, it did not make it illegal to “love whoever you want,” and it did not impose this definition on the states. It simply stipulated the parameters for specific federal benefits. Interestingly enough, liberals tend to valiantly defend the government’s right to impose restrictions on people looking for tax benefits from Uncle Sam, but here, suddenly, they conspicuously abandon that view. No surprise. They also spend most of their time telling us that the Constitution is an “outdated” document written by “old racist white men” but, out of the blue, they cry “unconstitutional” when the conversation turns to marriage or abortion law. Of course neither gay marriage nor abortion rights can be found in anywhere in the document, but that technicality won’t stop five left wing activists in black robes.
The Defense of Marriage Act was passed through the legislative process by democratically elected representatives with the sweeping support of a majority of Americans. It has now been tossed aside by five lifetime judicial appointees. Go ahead and celebrate this blatant undermining of the democratic process because it suits your agenda now. Key word: Now. But please understand what you’re cheering. The Supreme Court, regardless of how you feel about the issue, has no business deciding something like this. This is NOT a matter of constitutional interpretation, which means it is NOT a matter that falls under their jurisdiction.
Third, the Proposition 8 ruling is one of the more hideous things I’ve seen in a while. Proposition 8 is a ballot measure voted on and passed by the citizens of California. Yet the Supreme Court declared the people unsuited and forbidden from defending their own proposition in court. They said only the government of California can launch a defense of the people’s decision, and since the government declined to do so, the case must be referred to a lower court ruling. A lower court ruling where an openly gay judge tossed out the people’s decision. This is not just a bad ruling; this is a symptom of the fundamental corruption of our entire democratic system.
But, regardless, here we are. Many “conservatives” have entirely surrendered on this subject and have fallen silent on every other “social issue,” instead electing to stick to the easy topics — easy topics which mean nothing if we lose the culture. Millions of “Christians” have done the same. Fine, let them run away in the midst of the battle. They’re cowards. They care more about being popular than speaking truth. I won’t join them in their retreat. I made that decision a while ago, and I’ll take what comes as a result.