On Gay Marriage

My “Friends and Followers” May Be Surprised at What I Say in This Article

Politicians who buy votes with money confiscated from working folks have suddenly “evolved”.  Four years ago, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was staunchly approved and advocated by Obama, Hillary Clinton and Slick Willie (I mean Bill Clinton), and a host of other “follow-the-parade” or “lead-from-behind” politicians.  Now, they all suddenly seem to be ashamed of what they adamantly supported just a couple of years ago and say they support “gay marriage”.  Wow!  Their WHOLE PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW OF RIGHT AND WRONG AND THE WAY THE UNIVERSE WORKS JUST SUDDENLY FLIPPED OVER AND THEY’RE NOW ON THE SIDE OF THE GAY MARRIAGE ISSUE THAT THEY ADAMANTLY OPPOSED FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN POLLS SAID THEY SHOULD THINK THAT OTHER WAY.  Hmmm.  What a surprise!  Liberal “thinkers” show themselves to be really just barely smart enough to change their positions in time to catch up with the current poll.  Pathetic.  If this is the way you think, you are pathetic, too.  If you think like these sleazy politicians, you are just another slug, trying to pretend to be a human being.  But, if you have a brain, read on.  You may appreciate a discussion of the real issues.

About 1% of senators and about 4% of congress people remain that have actual convictions on the subject and have a genuine, viable argument for their position that is NOT a political position based on current polling data.

“Marriage” as an institution has been a sacred pact for several thousand years.  As Ben Carson recently asserted, marriage is a pillar of society and culture going back to the beginning of history, that no group or movement coming up in the past few years can simply usurp in a referendum to overthrow the multi-millenial cultural norms that form the basis of society everywhere on the planet.  In almost all cultures throughout history, and especially pertinent in the history of Western Civilization, “marriage” has meant one thing: “The state of Holy matrimony between one man and one woman”.

So, let’s consider the idea of “gay marriage”.  As I suggested, many of my friends and followers may be surprised to read what I say next.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America should now, or soon, recognize that a “marriage contract” can exist between ANY two people, or even between multiple people (polygamy).

Wow.

I said it.  I believe it.  I think it has to be recognized, ingested, and got over.  Let me explain why and how, and how “conservatives” can reconcile the inevitable with their religious beliefs.

I did not say that such “marriage contract” should allow people to include animals in their familial arrangements, and you’ll understand why shortly.  To my mind, the whole subject boils down to two basic issues.  One issue is legal.  The other is religious.  Here’s how I deal with it…

Everyone has heard the phrase, “marriage contract”.  It is the term used as the basis for marital law especially when resolving divorces and settling property rights when “marriages” fall apart.

There is another legal term, “civil union”.  In every state so far to recognize “civil unions”, it means that people who enter into such a “civil union” will have the same legal standing and rights as a recognized “marriage”.

In every state, the parties involved in a “marriage” or a “civil union” must be adults of sound mind.  That’s all I expect for any legal contract.  Animals, obviously, are unable to enter into such contracts, so bestiality is clearly not on the horizon for either “marriages” or “civil unions”, despite the crazy news you might hear out of the back country in India, or wherever.

The term “marriage contract”, as I said, is a legal term.  It is how states enforce legal decisions regarding the division of property and liabilities when divorces dissolve legal “marriages” recognized by the state.  Some states recognize “marriage”.  Some states recognize both “marriage” and “civil union”.  States recognize a legally binding civil contract between parties.  That is what states can do, legally.

So, what’s the difference between a “marriage” and a “civil union”?  Proposition 8 in California is the law and currently allows same-sex “civil unions” that convey the EXACT same legal rights to same-sex couples, yet only denies the title of “marriage”.  This case was heard before the Supreme Court of the United States of America recently.  And, I expect, the court will either return the case to the appellate court, or rule that “state’s rights” preclude the court from having jurisdiction in the case.  The decision should come out in mid-summer, I expect.  In my opinion, this was not even a "case" to be heard before the Supreme Court.

In another case this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.  I question whether that law will stand intact.  Again, the ruling will probably not come out until mid-summer.

The main issue is this: the extreme proponents of same-sex marriage want to get the federal government to recognize their legal status as a “marriage”.  But there are problems with this argument.  First of all, the status of “civil union” already conveys all the legal rights of a “marriage” and differs in name only, so claimants in any case have no possibility of showing loss or damage as the result of having a “civil union” as opposed to a “marriage”.

Secondly, there is a multi-millenial cultural understanding of the concept of “marriage” that is incorporated into all cultures and governments and is clearly elaborated in virtually all recognized religions that states that a “marriage” is “a state of "holy matrimony" "between a man and a woman”.  (The only culture I know of that might recognize same-sex unions going back centuries is the Polynesian/Hawaiian.)  This is why the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in an attempt to ensure that the federal government would only recognize unions between a man and a woman.  As I said before, I don’t think DOMA will stand, at least not in its entirety.  The federal government can only regulate legal contracts, not religious commitments.

DOMA will not stand.

Civil unions, or another word for it, will prevail as the federal law.  But, I hope the Supreme Court does not use the word “marriage” to describe what will inevitably be recognized as legal marital unions between same-sex couples, and, ultimately multiple polygamous parties.  But the necessity to recognize same-sex “marriage contracts” and legally-binding “polygamous living arrangements” are inevitable.  It just makes sense as people change the way they want to relate, legally, to their partners.

Contract law provides for all the necessary guidelines for same-sex and polygamous arrangements.  Religious fanatics who suspect NAMBLA-style man-boy or man-beast arrangements will be recognized have little to fear.  Contract law will exclude juveniles from entering into any lifetime commitment, and any hope that a beast will be able to accept the terms of a legal agreement are totally absurd.

The whole "same-sex mariage" argument boils down to two points: one about the law, and one about religion.  US law is unmistakably clear.  The “marriage contract” is a legal contract between parties that is enforceable in a court of civil law, depending on subtle differences between the states.  Every sentient human citizen of the country is entitled to the same legal rights of every other.  Therefore, any two, or three, or five, or nine persons of legal standing may enter into a “marriage contract” as simply as they may bind together to form a business partnership.  The law, as far as the federal government is concerned, is the same, and will ultimately be revise to reflect this view.

I am saying this:  SAME-SEX AND POLYGAMOUS ADULT RELATIONSHIPS ARE LEGAL AND WARRANT THE SAME STANDING BEFORE THE COURTS AND THE GOVERNMENT AS THE HOLY MARRIAGE CONTRACT BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN CONEYED BY RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY.

One subtle difference remains.  It bothers the Hell out of the people Bill O’Reilly calls the “Bible thumpers”.  Strict adherents to religious doctrine, not just Christians, but Muslims, Jews, and many other faiths, are absolutely livid over this whole subject. Why?

They don’t even seem to be able to put forth a viable argument for their position.  They “feel” it is wrong because of their “faith”.  And, they are correct, too.

The “Bible-thumpers” are correct, whether they know WHY they are correct or not.  The imams and the rabbis are all correct on this subject.  God, or Allah, or Yahweh are all of one accord; The holy state of matrimony exists between a man and a woman.  In philosophy, we take an idea and extrapolate it into the future to predict outcomes (sci-fi specializes in this).  When you extrapolate same-sex unions to the absolute, the race dies because there are no breeding couples.  Obvious, right?  Is that not proof enough for the “societal” definition of marriage?

What is WRONG, and badly wrong, with the LEGAL argument against California’s Proposition 8, is that the plaintiffs are arguing that their legally-recognized civil unions are not equal to a “marriage”.  And, how could they be?

A marriage is a “state of holy matrimony between a man and a woman”.  This is the law, and this is a basic tenet of virtually EVERY culture on the face of the earth from the beginning of time.  The argument before the Supreme Court in the case of Proposition 8 is basically to convey the title “marriage” to same-sex unions.  The suit is about the title and the use of the word “marriage”.  There is no significant legal or economic difference specified, other than the title.

One day, same-sex proponents may win this battle and destroy the meaning of the word “marriage”.  But, if they do, they will simultaneously destroy their own beloved liberal pillar, the separation of church and state.

Because you see, the whole definition of “marriage”, that the plaintiffs who want to overturn California’s Proposition 8 law is EXACTLY that “state of holy matrimony”.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CIVIL UNION AND A MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA IS THAT THE MARRIAGE IS DEFINED AS A STATE OF HOLY MATRIMONY!”

The plaintiffs in the case against the California law want the government to grant them, in their civil unions, the “state of holy matrimony”.  Sadly, for them, the government cannot convey a state of holiness.  Only a church, a religion, an ordained minister of faith can do that.  After that is done, the state “recognizes” the “marriage”.

To argue that the state can convey a “state of holiness” to a marriage contract assumes that the state is imbued with “holiness” that it can convey.  It implies the state is a religious organization.  But, WHICH religion is it supposed to be?  Isn’t this a bit self-contradictory?  Liberal, same-sex advocates claiming the government must be imbued with religious “holiness” that it can convey to them in their civil unions.  How does that make sense to anybody?

But that’s what they’re arguing for.  They will lose that one.  Liberals don’t all believe in this basically stupid legal challenge, and probably for the reasons I’ve put forth.  But liberals tend to be tyrants who want to tell everyone they must live and think as they do, so I’m NOT siding with them, even if they agree with me on this particular topic.

Civil unions are a “marriage contract” (though that demeans the word “marriage”).  This will survive as state and federal law.  There will NEVER be a conveyance of “holiness” to any unions from the federal or state governments.  Sorry.  Get over it.

Civil unions are about the best you’re going to get, so get over it.  You can’t have a “holy marriage” if you’re a same-sex couple or group unless you can find some sort of new gay "religion".  Good luck with that.  Sorry.  Get over it.

If you believe the words I’ve written, please forward this statement to your friends, and representative and senators. 

Please forawrd this to senator Portman and every conservative trying to reconcile this issue in their own minds.

Doesn’t it make the most sense to you?  Doesn’t it provide a way to a peaceful understanding and acceptance of the people we love and provide for a common ground from which we can grow together, rather than grow apart?

#GayMarriage #SupremeCourt #DOMA #Congress #Mariage #BenCarson