In their pro-SSM argumentation and gaycentric rhetoric, SSMers insist that the essentials of marriage are not the business of society. SSM, and thus marriage in their view, is far more a matter of privacy rather than public regard.
Government is not society, they assert, and what's more, Government dictates to society.
And yet, even at that, with personal motivations superseding societal concerns, and with Government seperated from and looming above the governed, they say that low participation rates in SSM and low interest in same-sex householding are irrelevant factors.
But wherever SSM has been imposed, the participation rates are very low (and declining). The SSM idea as a public policy is not a good means to deliver governmental benefits to a largely nonparticipating homosexual population. Nonetheless, they are convinced that society as a whole must give special treatment to this SSM idea and this marginal practice. Their end justifies their means.
They aim to impose the primacy of gay identity politics; this must over-ride all other considerations in our laws and culture.
The SSM idea and its argumentation make for a poor substitute for the marriage idea, for the principles of good governance, and for the rationale for special place of marriage in civilization.
It is a dangerous idea to complain about the supposed arbitrariness of marriage law and then to rely on the arbitrary exercise of governmental authority to impose a merger of SSM with marriage. That merger would amount to the replacement of the richly meaningful marriage idea by the impoverished SSM idea.
0 comments,:
Post a Comment