Marriage Definition Amendment

People who oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman are wrong. This issue is being touted by the media as a ban on gay marriage who say anyone who supports the measure hates gays, which is not the truth, but an example of the standard these days for the pap frequently pawned off as journalism is to take the worst possible look at something, from the liberal side, fire off a couple of cheap shots at conservatives and then on to the next story. Of course they have to sell ads or Mad Ave will get mad (whenever you watch TV you should always observe who is mainly paying for the program, even news). My problem is that if you say anything against them, for instance, if you point out that it is an unnatural act and a sin against God and nature and nothing more than lust-fires burning out of control, the first word out of their mouth is “homophobe”; often when they have no knowledge of where you come from, who your friends are or why you believe what you do. Homosexuality is a form of sexual deviancy. Normal sexuality is one man and one woman.
Oh, I heard that. So, you want to know who I am to define for you what is normal. Hah! See, that is the crux of the whole problem. Who am I to tell you what is moral? But then again, who are you to tell me what is moral? You are equally intolerant and miss a larger point. The fact is that without a moral compass of some sort, we get on a slippery slope. The standard backbone of culture for the last six thousand years has been: marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. Leave it alone because if I cannot impose my morality on you nor you me, then there can be no end, because who is anybody to tell anybody what to do, and have the government subsidize it to boot.
By what seems to me to be a logical progression of the argument, the government should also allow polygamous marriages. They have been backed by various religions and cultures over time and are once again being espoused (pun intended) by Hollyweird itself having new stories about it. You are no better than they are and cannot impose your morality on them. “Well,” you say, “There are children under the age of consent involved.” That is your morality that you are imposing on this poor minority of religious people. Why cannot their morality change the age of consent? Why is your morality so much better than theirs that you can make a law against it? Besides, the Colorado Court of Appeals just ruled that since we have no clear legislative or statutory guidance on what a common-law marriage is, we have to go back to centuries-old English common law, the basis for Colorado’s common law, where a girl who is 12 and a boy who is 14 can just say, “I intend to marry you” and they have a common law marriage.
What about communal marriages? Instead of a mere one man and two or three women or two men or two women that love each other, what if one of them falls in love with someone else? Or they all fall in love? Add the third, fourth or fifth parties to the marriage? It’s only fair. What if the 14 year old boy states he intends to marry a 40 year old man? What if your particular deviancy is to be bisexual? Add another partner? You could have a whole household orgy every night. The Romans did. Before their civilization fell. What about the woman who got married to a dolphin? I don’t have the link handy but the ceremony was performed by a clergyman and some people believe that dolphins are smarter than us anyway, so, why not? “Herb, you’re getting ridiculous now.” Am I? Are you going to tell me that anyone in their right mind would have thought 100 or 200 years ago that this was an issue that required an amendment to the Constitution to resolve?
Why a Constitutional amendment? Why get the government involved? Because we are a nation of laws, governed by rule of law. We have laws protecting us from murderers and thieves and child molesters. Why can I not be protected from a fringe minority’s deviant behavior being paid for at my expense? Look at it. Do you want to Pay Social Security (Which my president tried to fix and was stonewalled by the elder Senator from Massachusetts who said, quote, “Why are we bothering with this? All we have to do is raise the tax that everyone pays in and move on.” end quote) Benefits to the surviving spouses? How many of the surviving spouses? What if the spouse is a dog? Not an ugly person, but a real dog, because that is what they are into? Or a dolphin? What about the orgy commune? Who gets paid what to whom? How will divorces be handled? With more and more marriages and more and more types of marriages there will necessarily equal a need for more and more divorce courts, more and more judges, etc.
Marriage has been a man and a woman in all major cultures from the beginning, not just Judeo-Christians, so why change it now to satisfy the lust of a minority? I contend that the government is not establishing a new religion or preventing the free exercise of the same, but protecting its interests and the interests of its people. Besides, how far down the road of moral decay will you let the country go? Did you know the Dutch already have a political party made up of pedophiles [their word] whose platform is lowering their age of consensual sex from 16 down to 12 and decriminalizing child pornography? We already have NAMBLA marching on congress, how long will it be until the issue is whether over 8 really is too late? You say that I am an alarmist, using scare tactics but just look at how the morality of the country has slipped over the past 100 years.
Lust will always be with us and so will rebellion, which are the two things that really make up this matter. People are always going to be filled with desires of all sorts (including the lust for money and the lust for power) and we (especially we Americans) never like to be told what to do. I want to do what I want to do when I want to do it. Now, see, if you add, “And I don’t care who gets hurt doing it” then we have a problem. Go ahead and commit your sin, but at least care about who is going to get hurt. For example, there is one group who could have stopped the spread of AIDS by merely modifying their behavior slightly, not quitting their behavior, only modifying it would have slowed its progression and they are still acting irresponsibly, now seeking political sanction for their deviant sin.
What people do in their own homes is and should be their business and I don’t want to know about it. This also does not apply to private industry. If Apple Computer or CSAA Insurance or Levi Strauss want to offer benefits to employees by criteria they define, that is their business. It is their private business and the government should not be involved. Let them provide for their employees how they want and if you want to support those businesses go ahead. Personally I think it is hard to find a company in any industry that supports every belief so I recommend making business decisions, e.g., buying a computer, based on business criteria, such as price, quality, etc, although I have never bought a brand new pair of Levi’s Jeans since they refused to help the Boy Scouts. Even though they later reconsidered their position I found that the less expensive brands cover me just as well. Thrift store jeans, Lee, Wrangler, even *lowers voice to a whisper so the haters won’t gig him* the Wal-mart store brand, Rustlers, *resumes normal tone* are good enough.
But still, who are you to tell me what is morally acceptable, and who am I to tell you? I think I have made a strong case that the government must be involved at some point or there will be chaos and lawlessness. As to my own morality, the only final authority I accept is the King James Version of the Bible. It has been used for the last 400 years as a guidebook to many individuals and nations, ours included. I also think that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove, at the very least, the diligence and care with which these Scriptures have been handled and preserved as they were handed down, to avoid mistakes. But people will believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do, which is why, even though the Ten Commandments say “Thou shalt commit no murder” they still had to have laws about dealing with murderers, same with stealing, etc.
A constitutional amendment is necessary to define what marriage is.
Remember, the Good Book says, “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.”

Be the first to comment

I like comments and try to respond to them all if I can:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.