Friday, May 16, 2008

Coast to Coast Insanity is here.  4 justices count more than millions of voters and thousands of years of human wisdom.  The California Supreme Court has found that it is discriminatory to give civil unions to same sex couples and recognize marriage of only mixed sex couples.  That is like saying it is discriminatory to require an insurance agent to know about insurance and a lawyer to know about law.  Why can’t the lawyer just pass the insurance exam?  Isn’t there some law involved in it?  That’s silly, you say.  They are serving different functions and they don’t do the same thing.

Neither do same sex couples and mixed sex couples.  Forgive me for having to go back to basics.  Nature says a man and a woman fit together in a unique way.  They complete each other.  Sexually their organs are made to compliment each other.  Emotionally, they are made to balance each other.  Spiritually, they are made to complete each other.  Biologically, only a man and a woman can perpetuate the species.  The species is one in which the offspring are best raised in a mixed sex environment.  Unsurprisingly, thousands or millions of years of experience (I am not arguing origin theory here) has led to the evolution of an institution to best channel that reality.  It exists in the most advanced of cultures and the most primitive of cultures in one form or another.  We call it marriage.  It consists of a mixed sex relationship or relationships for the purpose of raising families and bonding between the sexes.

Marriage over different cultures has different variations.  Some have more than two partners.  Some are exclusive for life.  Some have an escape valve.  Yet around the world, it is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.  It is not a confusing proposition.  It is not open for judicial guessing.
Yet, again and again some on the far left insist on “progressive” social engineering.  They place the feelings of some over the strength of society.  The fact that an institution exists in a basic form throughout written history in thousands of different cultures is not a reason to keep it, but evidence of the need to change it according to these people.  Everything done in the past was not based upon the wisdom built up as we went from herding nomads to farmers to manufacturers to information engineers.  It is based upon prejudice and discrimination.  The will of God is considered a repressive scam which must be overturned.
I reject the premise and the goals of the secular progressive left.  I proudly stand for tradition, the Bible, and the collective experience of billions of people over the nonsense of a radical elite.  I call for a return of a common sense conservatism.

I understand what is at stake.  In the few countries which have tried this brave new world, marriage rates are already declining.  The stability of the family has worsen.  We already see the wreckage caused by a society based upon single parenthood.  It causes disconnected males.  It gives higher crime rates, higher poverty, a lack of commitment to anything, and a dispirited youth.  It causes government to expand to make up for the lack of family and gives a corresponding decline in freedom.  If even the tradition of marriage is not sacred, then all others are weakened.  A society without tradition is no society at all.  It is just a collection of people who happen to live at the same time.
Marriage and family are basic building blocks of civilization add in civil government, organized religion, and economic exchange (business) then you have a strong society.  Take away any of those and you tragically weaken the ability of any people to function as a community.

My critics are going to say that I am claiming gay people are destroying civilization.  No, I am saying the secular elite is destroying our civilization.  Gay people don’t hurt us by being, loving, or discovering their own institutions.  It is not the business of government to involve itself in emotional or economic relationships unless all of society benefits from it. Therefore government should not interfere with gay relationships, but neither does it have an obligation to pretend they serve the vital function that marriage does.  I don’t have a problem with gays.  I have a problem with those who wish to use gays to advance their radical agenda.  They don’t care about gays or straights.  They care about building a new social order as a shrine to their enlightened wisdom.  I say it is time to care about the common good and stop them in their tracks. It is time for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

2 Comments:

Blogger City Upon The Hill said...

Do you think a Marriage Protection Amendment could pass in Delaware?

4:14 PM  
Blogger David said...

It doesn't look good this year. We have a Defense of Marriage Act, but this ruling shows that a Constitutional Amendment is the best route. Senator Still introduced one but it is stuck in committee. Calls and letters wouldn't hurt.

3:41 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home