I Now Pronounce You...
Most battles in the culture war are skirmishes that garner little notice from the press and therefore the general population. Thousands of little items that happen everyday to erode our rights, our traditions and our institutions.
A significant portion of these battles take place in education and our judiciary. The battles are difficult to combat since the forces of change are inherently more patient and therefore, more powerful than the forces trying to preserve our culture. The forces of change are effective also due to the bureaucratic nature of these institutions which keep the beliefs and desires of the general population at bay.
Passing down our country's values and traditions to the next generation is vital to keeping this idea of America alive. This is why education is a main battleground. The judiciary's ever growing propensity to make laws is particularly threatening. Take a moment to examine the roots of many liberal policies and you will find their anointment in the unaccountable courts not elected legislators. Policies which could never muster legislative credibility like racial preferences and unrestricted abortion were all thrust upon an unwilling populace by men in robes - many with lifetime appointments. To this we must now add "gay marriage".
Further down, I discussed in detail the Masschusetts' Supreme Court ruling demanding the legislator pass a law recognizing "same-sex marriages". Among the numerous problems with this decree, I mentioned that the courts literally were forced to change the definition of the word "marriage" to justify their decision. Among the admissions in the ruling were incredible phrases like "marriage is an evolving paradigm".
Even if this were true, these four judges needed to find this "right" in the Massachusetts' constitution. Since the judges themselves are theoretically powerless to change the state's constitution, the "right" for two people of the same-sex to marry must have already been there. Who put it there? When? Even this is dishonest, since two people can make whatever commitments to each other they desire. They can even have a ceremony. The question is not one of "rights" the question is what must the State, ergo "society, recognize, endorse and promote.
In addition, one must presume "marriage" is still evolving, as we speak. Where do these four judges think "marriage" is this afternoon? Where do they think it is heading?
It is even possible that since their ruling "marriage" may be "evolving" back towards the traditional definition of "a union between a man and a woman"? Polls would certainly support this view. What now?
The proponents of gay marriage frame the issue as one of civil rights. Usually the ban on "same-sex marriage" is compared to past laws forbidding "interracial marriage". To this, I will concede that the opponents of "interracial marriage" were primarily motivated by ignorance or racism. Making the case that opponents of "same-sex marriage" are the moral equivalent to yesterday's "racists" is slanderous. Few proponents even bother to extrapolate this argument to this logical conclusion. Most opponents miss or ignore this slander due to the intimidation of being associated with "racism" or "homophobia".
What should be noted is that none of this has anything to do with the pros or cons of recognizing "gay marriage". After all, shouldn't that debate have happened before we were forced to alter the fundamental building block of the family?
A significant portion of these battles take place in education and our judiciary. The battles are difficult to combat since the forces of change are inherently more patient and therefore, more powerful than the forces trying to preserve our culture. The forces of change are effective also due to the bureaucratic nature of these institutions which keep the beliefs and desires of the general population at bay.
Passing down our country's values and traditions to the next generation is vital to keeping this idea of America alive. This is why education is a main battleground. The judiciary's ever growing propensity to make laws is particularly threatening. Take a moment to examine the roots of many liberal policies and you will find their anointment in the unaccountable courts not elected legislators. Policies which could never muster legislative credibility like racial preferences and unrestricted abortion were all thrust upon an unwilling populace by men in robes - many with lifetime appointments. To this we must now add "gay marriage".
Further down, I discussed in detail the Masschusetts' Supreme Court ruling demanding the legislator pass a law recognizing "same-sex marriages". Among the numerous problems with this decree, I mentioned that the courts literally were forced to change the definition of the word "marriage" to justify their decision. Among the admissions in the ruling were incredible phrases like "marriage is an evolving paradigm".
Even if this were true, these four judges needed to find this "right" in the Massachusetts' constitution. Since the judges themselves are theoretically powerless to change the state's constitution, the "right" for two people of the same-sex to marry must have already been there. Who put it there? When? Even this is dishonest, since two people can make whatever commitments to each other they desire. They can even have a ceremony. The question is not one of "rights" the question is what must the State, ergo "society, recognize, endorse and promote.
In addition, one must presume "marriage" is still evolving, as we speak. Where do these four judges think "marriage" is this afternoon? Where do they think it is heading?
It is even possible that since their ruling "marriage" may be "evolving" back towards the traditional definition of "a union between a man and a woman"? Polls would certainly support this view. What now?
The proponents of gay marriage frame the issue as one of civil rights. Usually the ban on "same-sex marriage" is compared to past laws forbidding "interracial marriage". To this, I will concede that the opponents of "interracial marriage" were primarily motivated by ignorance or racism. Making the case that opponents of "same-sex marriage" are the moral equivalent to yesterday's "racists" is slanderous. Few proponents even bother to extrapolate this argument to this logical conclusion. Most opponents miss or ignore this slander due to the intimidation of being associated with "racism" or "homophobia".
What should be noted is that none of this has anything to do with the pros or cons of recognizing "gay marriage". After all, shouldn't that debate have happened before we were forced to alter the fundamental building block of the family?
posted by Richard at
2:15 PM
<< Home