But that is the heart of the case against Prop 8: Gay marriage advocates believe there isn't any difference between two men in a sexual union and a husband and wife, and those of us who see this difference are blinded by hatred and prejudice. They delegitimize opponents, brand us as haters, and then try to strip us of our rights.That's an excellent summary.
For these Americans, gay marriage does not merely expand marriage to more people, it abolishes the historic core conception of marriage and replaces it with a new government-mandated genderless marriage. Gay marriage means that our maleness and femaleness does not matter, our capacity to create new life is irrelevant to the public project of marriage. Henceforth by government decree marriage will mean a commitment of any two people; marriage will become a product of individual desire not rooted in any natural order, not rooted in our history or traditions and, incidentally, also not rooted in any coherent vision of constitutional limits on what government courts can do.
If a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage, then marriage can't be about children. If marriage isn't about children, then why should anyone say that children should be raised within marriage? Why should any man feel an obligation to the mother of his children? If a judge can change the meaning of words describing something that long predates our union, then how can any law have meaning – since laws are written with words? We should reduce our elected legislators and executives to mere judicial appointment roles, and let the judges dictate our lives.
If we don’t have the legal right to vote to restore limitations on state licenses – which are issued on our behalf – limitations that treat people equally regardless of their birth, then how can we vote on anything?
Maggie: ...it abolishes the historic core conception of marriage and replaces it with a new government-mandated genderless marriage.
ReplyDeleteGovernment-centric more like it. The switch to a government controlled union is clear from the rhetoric of the advocates for neutering marriage. They constantly refer to "legal" (i.e., government run) marriage, as if by turning something over to government it need no longer bear any resemblance to the real world.
In that vein, I have a solution to the gulf oil spill: Redefine water to include oil! I want to make it clear I am only talking about "legal" water.
Now instead of being an environmental disaster, the "water" spill would be providing wildlife with water, something they actually need! Sure, the haters and the bigots out there will point to a few isolated examples of birds who have been killed by the "water" spill, but "traditional" water kills birds all the time. Changing the definition doesn't change any of that.
Come to think of it, we'd solve the oil crisis at the same time. It certainly wouldn't hurt Saudi Arabia if they suddenly had a bunch more "water." There's absolutely no downside - except to the haters and bigots of the world.
op-ed, you can't prove that calling oil water harmful, after all. And I really want it. There's no reason to deny my request, other than your religious beliefs.
ReplyDelete