We've heard of pledges politicians have been asked to sign that affirm, among other things, the bride+groom core of marriage.
We know marriage neutering advocates would never sign a pledge like that. However, they should be asked to sign a different marriage pledge. This one should be a pledge to:
1) Oppose with statements, votes, and vetoes any attempt to a) provide legal recognition to polygamous or incestuous marriages; b) lower the age consent; or c) grant person status to machines or nonhuman animals.
2) Support with statements, votes, and votoes the rights of a) clergy, religious venues, and religious organizations not to perform or host wedding ceremonies in violations of their principles; and b) the rights of parents to teach their children that a marriage only exists when bride and a groom are involved.
Since so many marriage neutering advocates publicly scoff (to the point of being bullies) at the idea that neutering marriage can be in any way associated with polygamy, incest, pedophilia, or bestiality, and since they have said "churches won't be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies", they should have no problems signing such a pledge, right?
Of course, if they are willing to sign a pledge with the first point, they will be admitting that marriage should be defined one way and not another, and that there isn't a fundamental right to marry or define it any way someone wants, since they would be opposing marriages (polygamous, incestuous) that have been historically recognized and are currently practiced and recognized in various parts of the world. They would be admitting that it is okay to place restrictions on marriage licensing for the sake of good public policy over personal desires.
Comment Policy
I would have no problem with such a pledge.
ReplyDeleteNor do I have a problem saying it is okay to place restrictions on marriage licensing for the sake of good public policy over personal desires, as long as those restrictions:
1. Are justified by a compelling government interest,
2. Are narrowly tailored to achieving that interest,
3. And are the least restrictive means possible for achieving that interest.
Which is exactly why marriage licensing has traditionally distinguished the only kind of pairing that could naturally produce new citizens and provide those new citizens with a legally, financially, and socially cohesive construct in which guardianship is provided by both of the sexes that comprise all of society.
ReplyDelete