LONG BEACH— Many I know rightly believe certain social issues should be left to the states. Federal Constitutional Amendments are a reactionary recourse to irrational, but still needed, social debate. But the writing is still on the wall. Eventually a Federal level ruling will be made, and shortly there after, federal level amendments will be debated. George W. Bush, continuing his preemptive doctrine, repeatedly called for the early passage of such an amendment while he was in office. A federal amendment to define marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.
As of today, here is the current status of each state:
State Constitutional Bans: California, Alaska, Arkansas, Deleware, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Michigan, Missippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon*, Utah,
Defense of Marriage Acts: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida*, Idaho, Illinoise, Indiana*, Iowa*, Kansas, Maryland*, Minnesota, New Jersey*, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington*, Wyoming
Implied or No Public Policy: Connecticut*, Massachusetts*, New Mexico, New York*
Supreme Court Ruled in Wisconsin that only heterosexual couples could marry.
*Indicates court appeals in process to challenge the existing laws/amendments and to allow same sex unions.
The Gay Marriage Fantasy
By William MurchisonYou really can’t have “gay marriage,” you know, irrespective of what a court or a legislature may say.
You can have something some people call gay marriage because to them the idea sounds worthy and necessary, but to say a thing is other than it is, is to stand reality on its head, hoping to shake out its pockets.
Such is the supposed effect of the Iowa Supreme Court’s declaration last week that gays and heterosexuals enjoy equal rights to marital bliss. Nope. They don’t and won’t, even if liberal Vermont follows Iowa’s lead.
The human race — sorry ladies, sorry gents — understands marriage as a compact reinforcing social survival and projection. It has always been so. It will always be so, even if every state Supreme Court pretended to declare that what isn’t suddenly is. Life does not work in this manner.
The supposed redefinition of the Great Institution is an outgrowth of modern hubris and disjointed individualism. “What I say goes!” has become our national philosophy since the 1960s. One appreciates the First Amendment right to make such a claim. Nonetheless, no such boast actually binds unless it corresponds with the way things are at the deepest level, human as well as divine. Surface things can change. Not the deep things, among them human existence.
A marriage — a real one — brings together man and woman for mutual society and comfort, but also, more deeply, for the long generational journey to the future. Marriage, as historically defined, across all religious and non-religious demarcations, is about children — which is why a marriage in which the couple deliberately repudiates childbearing is so odd a thing, to put the matter as generously as possible.
A gay “marriage” (never mind whether or not the couple tries to adopt) is definitionally sterile — barren for the purpose of extending the generations for purposes vaster than any two people, (including people of opposite sexes), can envision.
Current legal prohibitions pertaining to something called “gay marriage” don’t address the condition called homosexuality or lesbianism. A lesbian or homosexual couple is free to do pretty much as they like, so long as it doesn’t “like” too much the notion of remaking other, older ideas about institutions made, conspicuously, for others. Marriage, for instance.
True, marriage isn’t the only way to get at childbirth and propagation. There’s also the ancient practice called illegitimacy — in which trap, by recent count, 40 percent of American babies are caught. It’s a lousy, defective means of propagation, with its widely recognized potential for enhancing child abuse and psychological disorientation.
Far, far better is marriage, with all those imperfections that flow from the participation of imperfect humans. Hence the necessity of shooing away traditional marriage’s derogators and outright enemies — who include, accidentally or otherwise, the seven justices of Iowa’s Supreme Court. These learned folk tell us earnestly that the right to “equal protection of the law” necessitates a makeover of marriage. And so, by golly, get with it, you cretins! Be it ordered that.
One can say without too much fear of contradiction that people who set themselves up as the sovereign arbiters of reality are — would “nutty” be the word?
The Iowa court’s decision in the gay marriage case is pure nonsense. Which isn’t to say that nonsense fails to command plaudits and excite warnings to others to “keep your distance.” We’re reminded again — as with Roe v. Wade, the worst decision in the history of human jurisprudence — of the reasons judges should generally step back from making social policy. For one thing, a judicial opinion can mislead viewers into supposing that, well, sophisticated judges wouldn’t say things that weren’t so. Would they?
Of course they would. They just got through doing it in Iowa, and now the basketball they tossed in the air has to be wrestled for, fought over, contested: not merely in Iowa, but everywhere Americans esteem reality over ideological fantasy and bloviation. A great age, ours. Say this for it anyway: We never nod off.
TennesseePaul
Stephen VanNuys
Brooklyn Daniel
The Freedom Thinker
My views on this issue, as with most others of a moral nature and involving our Federal Government, are, as follows:
-The Federal Government (i.e legislative, executive, and judicial branches) under the Constitution is not explicitly given the power to make moral determinations (i.e. moral powers were not provided to the Federal Government – see Article 1, Sections 8 and 9; Article 2, Section 2; Article 3, Section 2; and 10th Amendment);
-Homosexual Marriage is as much a state issue, as is abortion (abortion is more likely to be valid as a Federal issue on the basis of interstate commerce than Homosexual Marriage);
-The issue should be left to individual states to determine and they should ideally make it a State Constitutional Amendment; and
-Marriages/civil unions from one state should be legally enforceable in all states based on the principle of reciprocity.
Basically, this leads to what Jefferson envisioned in the United States, which would be substantially different environments across the geography (granted Jefferson also thought we were going to be a nation of farmers). To a degree we have it anyway, but it would have been even more that way had we actually followed these principles.
Lincoln in many ways started us down the path to giving moral powers to the Federal Government by putting morality behind the Civil War. Again, the other method of going after slavery would have been the interstate commerce clause.
Just my opinions. So basically you have a hill of beans. But I have had the chance to fill my dinner break.
under the Constitution is not explicitly given the power to make moral determinations
Morality includes “Thou Shalt Not Kill” as well as “Thou Shalt Not Steal”. Are you saying the federal government should leave these to the States, as they have no right to enforce such laws? Morality also includes obedience to laws… so if the Federal Government has absolutely no jurisdiction in maintaining a moral civilization, then it technically could not enforce any laws, or punish any one who breaks the law. And from here, a law not enforce, ceases to be a law. You are left with a federal goverment that can’t do anything.
Obviously there is a threshold. Your threshold seems lower than others.
However, I find this statement interesting: abortion is more likely to be valid as a Federal issue on the basis of interstate commerce than Homosexual Marriage
As a marriage is considered a licenced contract between two people. A contract granted in one state will be argued to be valid in another state based on that very same clause. It is the reason Rhode Island has “legal” gay-marriage. The supreme court of that state ruled that the state must recognize the contracts issued in Taxachusetts as valid contracts in RI.
Per my earlier comment:
“-Marriages/civil unions from one state should be legally enforceable in all states based on the principle of reciprocity.”
This is what drives the rule between MA and RI. You just said it a different way.
Your references to “Thou Shalt Not Kill” and “Thou Shalt Not Steal” would fall under the Federal Judiciary’s power in that the Feds are only able to prosecute crimes which cross state lines, conflicts between states, lawsuits against Federal Government, ad nauseum (See Article 3, Section 2). As such, the Federal Government cannot intervene in a state murder case unless the person is found to have carried bodies across statelines, murdered the person a national park – what have you.
As for national parks, well don’t get me started…
As for national parks, well don’t get me started I like ‘em. They presented ample entertainment and relaxation during my youth in East Tennessee.
You want to know something funny? When the Vanderbuilts bought the land in Ashville to build the Builtmore Estate (their summer home, mind you), the land was completely baren. Farmers had slashed and burned the forrest. The landscape architect who helped design the grounds at Builtmore was the very same who designed central park. His work at Builtmore resulted in hundereds of thousands of plants (Trees, shrubs, flowers, ferns, etc) being planted all over the entire 200,000+ acre property. The goal was to regrow a forrest.
Additionally, The Federal Government enforces murder and theft laws whilst on federal land. And, the Federal Government will always have land. Even if it is only the Senate, House, Supreme Court and White House. Just the nature of the beast.
At any rate, as you and I agree on the interstate commerce, this is why a Federal Level argument will arise. If one state says no, and the other says yes, then a federal debate must be had to determine how such a contract should be managed within the framework of the constitution.
Oh yeah, and any theft occuring on a bank immediately calls in the FBI…
Yes, Federal Level arguments will arise, but I think the answer is clear if you look to reciprocity. States will be required to accept out of state same-sex marriages.
As for FBI – well that whole organization is fabricated on gross overextension of the interstate commerce clause coupled with the necessary and proper clause for good measure.
Lincoln fought a war to end slavery when what the Constitution required was an Amendment. Article 1, Section 9 and Article 5, “provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
I disagree with National Parks for the same reason that I disagree with the TARP. They aren’t provided for in the Constitution and if we wanted that to occur it should have been done through amendment.
The Constitution affords great liberties to the states to create parks if they so desire.
BTW – I never did really opine on whether I consider same-sex marriage moral. I don’t think it conforms to generally widely held social norms and it doesn’t conform to Christian thought based on the Bible (as well as most other major religions – Judaism, Islam). So with that said, I think from a moral relativist standpoint it is immoral for as long as social norms dicate that it is (I think this will be the case for a while given the increasing number of Hispanics moving into the US, who are generally far more morally conservative) and from a Christian standpoint well it is wrong if you look to the plain language of the Bible.
Mr. Murchison’s argument above doesn’t hold much water on the basis of marriage being solely to produce children. If that was the case, then marriages were the couple were barren would not be valid and likewise for couples who seek to use prophylactic measures. This is a favorite argument of homosexuals when approached with natural law arguments as well. Basically, they argue that one shouldn’t engage in any sexual activity that doesn’t lead to children.
Good old ethical wrangling and argumentation!
I’ve got a twist on this little debate here. I see opportunity in this issue for a better society that I haven’t heard anybody point out. I’ll write my thoughts this weekend and trackback to here. Thanks for another interesting post and debate to read.
Did you all disable trackbacks? I can’t find the trackback link for this post?
Never saw it come through Thinker. Did get a chance to look at your argument for European defense shield. Just haven’t had a chance to post response.
I wrote it just haven’t been able to find a “trackback” link for this article here. Wonder if American Missive changed a setting?
FT: I didn’t intentionally turn off track backs. They should still be around. I’ll look. If anything you might beable to just copy and past the URL from the address bar.
Tinkler -
First off, just kidding! I looked at your blog and I can’t find your posting relative to this anywhere on the blog. Anyways, off from work now – will be back online working when I get home. Look and see where your blog post went.
Hope you and your family are doing well.
Stifler
[...] By Freedom Thinker 0 Comments Categories: Freedom In response to an interesting debate. Marriage is for the purpose of procreation, but it is also a symbol of Christ and the church [...]
Yep, that worked. Sorry about the confusion.
BMM, family is doing great. My wife has had 8 weeks of for maternity leave which has been nice. She goes back to work this week though so we’ll see how that works. She’s been up with the baby until now and now we will be starting rotations. So, I’m going to have to get use to a little less sleep then normal now.