Saturday, May 12, 2012

The Great "Gay" Debate

Obama "came out" this week in favor of gay marriage.  Finally, we can be sure of his position on this vital issue (maybe, he's kinda like John Kerry: he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again).  Not only is this the worst kind of pandering in search of votes for a floundering incumbency, it's reducing segments of the population into warring factions instead of bringing the country together under a shared vision for the future.

You can see the same happening with other demographic groups: the "War on Women", "Republicans Hate Blacks (thanks, Rev Al)", "Republicans Hate Hispanics (thanks, Howard Dean)", "Republicans Hate the Working Man and only favor the Rich (the Democrat Party as a whole)", etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

The fact that these are all bald-faced lies doesn't seem to matter a whit.  Neither to the Democrat politicians who spew this garbage, nor to the eager attendees in the choir.  They are comforted in their victimhood status and resist any notion that they might have the solution to their "inequality" in their own hands.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul has never been sound fiscal policy, however much Paul may want it.

Getting back to the impetus of this post, gay marriage, Obama is blatantly politicizing his stance purely for electoral gain, NOT the deep, personal introspection he claims.  Those who listened closely to his interview will note that he said that he wasn't mad at (VP) Joe Biden for bringing the subject up, stating that "We had already decided that we were going to take this stance in the future and were going to make the announcement later in the year before the convention"!  Gee, if this is how he has decided he truly feels, why wait?  The LGBT community has been clamoring for years for him to take a stand on this issue (although, if they listened to his interview, they'd notice that he said nothing about advancing the gay rights/gay marriage agenda.  What he said was that it should remain a states rights issue, quite a different thing altogether, no?) and he has resisted all of their demands.  Now, suddenly, he's openly for it?  The timing is curious, at the least.  The fact that he has admitted that he had planned on making the announcement at a later date can only lead to one of two conclusions: one, he was caught by surprise by Biden's statement and felt pressured to respond in such a way as to not drive away part of his base and only said he had already come to this position as a way of saving face and denying that his statement was coerced; or two, he and his re-election team had politically calculated the optimum time for the President to make the announcement so as to have the biggest impact on his re-election chances.

It's a mystery to me why the LGBT community continue to allow themselves to be played like this.  I'll say right here that I am most definitely NOT in favor of gay marriage.  I think so-called "Civil Unions" are sufficient to protect the legal rights of same-sex couples.  Even without civil unions, any couple can guarantee themselves the legal rights of inheritance, powers of attorney, child custody, medical visitation, etc. by going on line and downloading the forms for just a few bucks (no attorney necessary) and, if necessary, filing the paperwork with the county clerk or the county court.  Done.

Marriage, on the other hand, should be preserved as an institution.  Supported by literally thousands of years of human history.  Marriage is primarily a religious institution, co-opted by the State, not the other way around.  All of the world's major religions have provisions for marriage that are universal in at least one aspect: the Union of Man to Woman.  This follows the natural, biological order of creation.

One of the reasons that the institution of marriage has survived the test of time is that it has been proven that the family unit of Father & Mother coming together for the purpose of raising children is the optimum.  Optimum for the well being of the offspring, optimum for the health of the community, and by extension the State and Nation.  Being optimum doesn't mean it is always perfect, it simply means that it is an ideal to aspire to.  It is for this reason that government(s) have an interest in the politics of same-sex relations.  Governments have an interest in stable societies and a happy populace.  Opening up the institution of marriage to "re-interpretation" will lead to the elimination of any formal recognition of a family unit.  The fabric of social civil society would begin to unravel.  Some things should simply not be altered for no other reason than the whim of children who want something they can't have.

For any who might be reading this who are gay, or have gay friends or relatives, I am not in favor of leading a march on your homes denouncing your chosen lifestyle.  Contrary to popular misconception, conservatives don't really care what you and you partner do in the bedroom, although we'd rather not be subjected to the sight in public (don't get your knickers in a twist, we find gross displays of hetero affection in public similarly offensive).  However, I would like to pose this question, so far unanswered: "Why do you feel the need for your lifestyle to be given the approval of the rest of society?  By force of the court, if necessary?"  I mean, if you are truly devoted to each other and firmly believe your relationship is proper, why do you need my stamp of approval?  You're not gonna get it.  It doesn't matter how many judges and politicians you gather together to declare you and your partner "married".  Those of us who hold a traditional view of marriage will never see you so, whether we say anything to your face or not.

So, why?  All of the legal rights you say you want can be gotten easily and cheaply.  What are you gonna do if they pass a law recognizing "legal" gay marriage with a carve-out for religious objection?  Are you going to be satisfied with a ceremony performed by the Justice of the Peace?  Or are you going to sue the church, demanding that they abrogate their deeply held religious beliefs in favor of your hurt feelings of "2nd class citizenship"?  The point is, if you want your relationships to been seen as equally valid with traditional male/female marriage, demonstrating and marching and filing lawsuits against those who don't agree is not the way to go about it.  Live your lives, show your fidelity to your partners, get along with your neighbors (even if you don't like them too much), participate in your local community.  Living the example will go a lot farther to changing public perception that trying to do so by force.

UPDATED 6/2015:

Well, here we are.  SCOTUS has (again) delved deeply into the Constitution and come up with a heretofore unknown "right", in the process, upending literally millenia of human history.  Once opened to redefinition, especially under the reasoning of Justice Kennedy, the author of the majority opinion, there is little or no legal basis for redrawing the lines that delimit the bounds of what will comprise legal "marriage" in the future.

Derided as "alarmists" and "bigots", those who have warned that this will lead inevitably to a loss of actual Constitutional rights under the 1st Amendment have been ridiculed.  Proponents point to the language of the decision that purports to defend the 1st Amendment rights of those who hold religious opposition to SSM to continue to promote their beliefs and practice the tenets of their faith.  However, we've already seen attempts by individuals and local government officials to punish those who refuse to go along with this radical redefinition of society:

Without even going to trial, a judge ordered that both the state of Washington and the same-sex couple can collect damages and attorney's fees against  both a woman's business assets and her personal home and savings (guilty until proven innocent?).  "The message of these rulings is unmistakable: the government will bring about your personal and professional ruin if you don't help celebrate samd-sex marriage," said her attorney.  [From]

Aaron and Melissa Klein refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, and now they must pay for their "crime".  An Oregon administrative law judge ruled on Jan. 29 that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa did, in fact, discriminate in 2013 when they declined to provide a wedding cake for a lesbian couple because it would have violated their Christian beliefs (they face a fines of up to more than $150,000). [From]

Coeur d'Alene, Idaho:  City officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines.

Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here, and it's happening this quickly. [From]

During oral arguments in Obergefell v Hodges, [White House] counsel told Justice Alito that if the court found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, then religious institutions' tax exempt status is "certainly going to be an issue".

And so it begins....................

No comments:

Post a Comment