Thursday, June 19, 2008

Standing up Against Same-sex Marriage

Standing Up Against Same-sex Marriage

By: Shane Borgess

Wednesday, June 18th, 2008

It has become a regular disappointment to see the arguments supporting the redefinition of marriage in newspapers and columns offered without a cogent response. The pressure to be ‘fair’ apparently extends only to treating gays fairly, rather than the issue. I’d like to offer my thoughts on how to answer some of the dogmatic nonsense being churned out by the extreme left concerning same-sex marriage.

A snarky retort we hear so often is also the most simplistic argument - “How will gay marriage hurt your heterosexual marriage?” My answer is to ask “how will allowing polygamy or incestuous marriages hurt my marriage? ” It wouldn’t, but the effect it will have on succeeding generations will be deep and dysfunctional. If love is to be the only criterion for marriage, the courts and the state have no argument other than collective moral outrage to deny polygamists marriage rights. Since collective moral outrage wasn’t considered recently by the justices who redefined an institution thousands of years old, we should expect no deference considering their new priorities.

Other readers insist that since heterosexuals have so defiled marriage it’s hypocritical to insist it’s too reverential an institution to dilute further. Only in a world where humans are perfect could any institution survive unblemished, but because people fail to keep the standard doesn’t mean we ought to change the standard and relegate the ghost of marriage to legitimizing same- sex relationships. Countless cultures, kingdoms and nations, people both eminently wise and common throughout human history accepted gay relations as a sexual pursuit but still refused to endorse same-sex marriage. They understood why heterosexual marriage was a compelling interest. Today, the left declares all of them thoughtless bigots, and crown themselves our moral superiors.

And they’ve done a fine job cornering the market on moral superiority. They’ve anointed themselves this generation’s victims, akin to African Americans of the past marching for their civil rights. They did this so no one would challenge them under risk of being labeled the equivalent of “racist.” It has worked. But no matter how often they try to link laws against interracial marriage to laws against same-sex marriage, it doesn’t hold. The race of a person should mean nothing to society, in the case of marriage, an institution created to construct a stable environment for the begetting and raising of children, race plays no part. But gender does, and the state has a compelling interest in prioritizing heterosexual marriage because stable, mature children raised by a mother and a father are integral to the health of the culture.

Which brings us to the final point. The left brays about democracy and stolen elections, but celebrates the kidnaping and subsequent distortion of such an important institution by unelected judges - how Machiavellian. They set out to redefine marriage so it can be used to legitimize same-sex relationships and normalize the gay lifestyle. They have every right to do so, but they have no right to impose on a free people their designs. Chief Justice Ronald George disregarded the will of the people because he sought to confer dignity on his friends. In doing so he dishonored democracy and irreparably harmed the trust Californians have in the justice system. I think it’s time Californians took back their government.

A note from Radarsite: Three little words -- It's about time. --rg


  1. We will see after the elections in November if California votes to limit marriage.

    The problem is that banning gay marriage will not save marriage. There will still be divorces and failed marriages. It is the mindset of now 3 generations of Americans that if you tire of a spouse, get a new one. If one gets old, get a new one. It is the throw away ideal. Always get new, never try to make a marriage work.

  2. That changes with you and me findalis. Starting now. Every person we lose to the libertine lifestyle is another we'll have to earn back.

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. Once again -- It is clearly stated in our Welcome Message that we do not accept anonymous comments. rg

  5. Running counter to many opinions of friends and associates, I recently commented to an old friend, who has taken with almost religious zeal the campaign for gay or same sex marriage, "It is not a matter I'd set my alarm clock for."
    My comment was not well received.
    You see, I am a gay male and one who has even been awarded for work on behalf of full franchise for homosexual men and women. And what I've done in that effort, I'll never deny.
    Yet, when any movement takes on demands by political 'tours d'main', I am concerned.
    What originally started out as 'partners' wanting to maintain 'estates' and seeking means of conveyence through legal measures has morphed into to a frustrating dilemma.
    What I find to be the greatest irony of all is that so much of this argument had its origins in the "Sexual Revolution" of the Sixties. Remember that time? Cohabitation without ceremony became an "in-your-face" to middle cllass America. Then came the "Stonewall Riots" in New York in June 1969 (Grin, conservatives, this was an open challenge to "Keep government out of our lives.")
    So, now we have major debates over what degree my fellow homosexuals want to give govenment in thier lives.
    Now this guy has never worn his 'gayness' on his sleeve, nor asked for any exceptions from society. If in the shadow of prejudice or bigotry, I worked as hard, or harder as any other guy on the gang or the team.
    But semantics make for peculiar illusions. Were I in a relationship, and wanted conveyence of property, I would have a good lawyer write it up. People have been uniting in couples for years, uniting, "marrying" if you will, creating exceptional bonds - which many more people than we realize respect. And there are many homosexuals in these relationships who live reassured in each other in that element of commitment - should I say love? - that they nurture every day, that are governed by higher virtues than any state can offer.
    Personally, my conservatism in this matter is based upon the fact that I don't have to officially classify myself to share the same franchise as the rest of you.
    And, you know what, whether your gay-friendly or not, I have faith that I can trust you, my fellow citizens, with the same rights as you have.
    It is very rare for me to make declarations as I have just done. But sometimes I find it a matter of respect to others to be open. Thank you.