|
The application of
laws to ensure equal protection for all is a paramount issue for
our times. As we enter this period of social
enlightment, we cannot be quick to cure past perceived ills by
committing to laws and actions that are just as insidious and
limiting of rights for other citizens.
I seek no
application of equality of our laws to non-citizens who are here
of illegal means; rights of man has historically bestowed rights
to man by virtue of birth, but those rights have never
established a right to US citizenship or to cross our border in
violation of our laws. And so I shall limit my
discussion here to only being concerned about US citizens and
their protection of rights which are governed via the US
Constitution. Miscreants and American
Experience thieves are of little concern to me and their
deportation should be a given, not something negotiated by those
whose hearts are claimed to be far more understanding and
bleeding than others.
Being a gay man
having occupied a small personal space of this world for over
fifty years, I've been touched by hate, hugged by love, and seen
the world evolve in my life time in ways I thought I would never
see - some ways are of goodness, but much has been made in
recent years of punishing others to elevate others supposedly to
create equality - and sometimes when terms get in the way, we
seek to define equality through the bastardization of language
to carve out equality for ourselves in a very selfish means
while denying equality for others - if not by intent, but by
result. Pursuit of equality by narrowing a
discussion is fraud - that is not equality - it is pandering.
Being a
libertarian, I feel the greatest liberty to all is the greatest
good - that we enter this world with the same opportunity - we
consume oxygen, we have free will, and we can move our body from
one locality to another in search of the best in our
lives. And while we are born into different
circumstance, we are nonetheless afforded the same
aspirations. And while it is so popular by the
party in power now to insult the wealthy, there is no use in
this if we are seeking true liberty. To listen to
the President's party, we have to assume the wealthy sneak into
the homes of the poor at night and steal all the accumulated
wealth and goods of the poor and that this is how the rich get
richer. It is quite laughable to think that
there are those who believe the rich are merely the Grinch who
slides down the chimney and bags up 22 inch rims, Obamaphones,
and impregnates the unwed to set them down a path of failure.
As someone who
was not born into wealth, I know the feeling of looking at
others and wondering what could be and what might
be. But I was also not born shackled and into a
caste system like in many third world nations. I am
thankful that the gift I received upon drawing my first breath
some fifty odd years ago gave me a chance to seek to live a life
under this Constitution and not in Iran or China or North Korea
or some African nation.
As a gay man, I
also have felt the angst wondering why my love of another man
cannot be equated with the love of a man for a woman; but I am a
man of reality and I have my eyes open and understand that
institutions that Government interferes in, are not necessarily
institutions that Government should be involved
with. There is almost always a bastardizing of
life when Government gets involved. The law of
unintended consequences seems to always raise its head - birthed
into this world with good intentions - but consuming oxygen and
infecting the lives of many with violations of liberty and
rights even under the guise of giving others
rights.
How is it that we
have a President who spent nearly 45 years supporting the
definition of marriage being between a man and a woman be
allowed to suddenly vacillate to a position that just happens to
coincide with his leftist donating population which was
threatening to deny him their funds during the election of
2012. How is it that a mid-course change by our
President in support of gay marriage be applauded and not
questioned? Is the fact that he changed
his position to one of popular inertia excuse his profound
ignorance he showed for most of his life. He was
neither struck by lightning and brought to a near death
experience nor was he ever a product of an epiphany where he
suddenly found it upon himself to seek absolution of his 45
years of bigotry for a greater cause of
rights.
This President is
one of the kind of people who are backed into a position out of
greed - out of exploitation - whether it is pitting the wealthy
against the unmotivated - or by pitting gay against those who
view marriage as between one man and one
woman. This is a man who holds no dear core
belief that exhibits well thought out positions and who has a
history of lengthy, scholarly dispositions in written
evidence. We cannot see in this man an lifelong
pursuit of supporting the righteous position; rather we find a
life history of exploitation and division - often wrapped in a
bacon of flowery language - not far removed from bull shit.
My belief in the
concepts of liberty and equality seek to not defile one group to
raise another to its assumed placement in life. I
would no more ask Government to define what marriage is - as
marriage is more of a religious institution in which Government
has seen fit to meddle and to involve itself to provide benefits
and freebies to some, tax provisions to others, and to exploit
marriage to win votes. Marriage is a holy
union - and if you are such a person to seek a union that is of
the church, then don't seek to tell the church how it will run
its unions. And since marriage has only been
exploited by Government, there is no actual violation of any
equality by marriage being of one man and one woman.
Those who seek to
have a non-religious union bastardized marriage by moving it
from a religious institution to a secular one instead of
crafting a name for secular unions. And by
redefining marriage into one where it is no longer a religious
only institution, we have a true problem - not of liberty and of
equality, but by Government sticking its focking nose into
things it should never have been allowed to be.
|
I'd argue that
Government, in the pursuit of equality, should have established
the concept of "Civil Union" for all adult unions it
seeks to codify for legal purposes. In this
application, you would have separated Church from State,
separated marriage from civil avenues, and allowed for an equal
application under the law. With marriage
being of Church and Civil Unions being of State, we would have a
situation where marriages would only be administered through
Churches and if these unions were to be legally recognized, then
that union would require them to pursue a civil union with all
the trappings, protections, and responsibilities of the
law. We would have afforded a clear
"civil" procedure that would have separated a
"marriage" from a "civil unon" and would
have instantly had a true and logical distinction that would
have resolved all conflicts of gay and straight and removed the
bigotry of one for the other and allowed for a way to recognize
all unions of consenting adults under the law.
Yet, my analysis
here assumes the goodness of the hearts of the homosexual left -
that they truly want to have marriage just so they can be like
straights. And having not just fallen off the
turnip truck yesterday, I know that for decades the gay
community lambasted the concept of societal norms and eschewed
marriage as if it had been a ripe vagina. You see,
youngsters, marriage was something that gays just didn't do -
and the sudden push for gay marriage has to be viewed within
this context - that the conquest for gay marriage has nothing to
do with equality at all - it is a way of destroying a societal
institution.
But how can I say
this?
When gay marriage
advocates narrowly define what they say constitutes marriage,
that is bigotry no less as insulting as straights who think
marriage is of one man and one woman. If you are to
be logically and intellectually consistent, you cannot advocate
a position predicated on equality while imposing non-equality on
other adults who don't share your characteristics.
So if you find that having marriage as between a man and a woman
as violative of equal protection, how is defining marriage as
being between only two people equate with equality for
all? How does your narrow view of unions only of two
people being worthwhile and legitimate make you superior to
advocates of one man and one woman marriage?
You simply accept the terms of two parties and then redefine the
parts you find distasteful. Your integrity of
equality ends where your own political and narrow view allows -
meanwhile others who are in relationships of love and their
beliefs are just as precious to them in their bonds - and that
their numbers exceed two. How is it your
numerical bigotry is any less insulting than those who seek
marriages of disparate genders?
This is why I
argued that marriage is a religious institution only -not one of
equality pursuits or violations. It is a separate
union recognition from the State - and it is the error of the
State to seek to involve itself in a religious institution and
tried to coopt the position and then to recognize
it. Having not established civil unions for
legal recognition of all adult unions, the Government created
the unintended consequence of whoring what marriage truly was
and created the problem of gays seeking legal protection for
their unions. And with the gays seeking only
the expansion of recognition to their narrow two party unions,
it is a wonder that we can exist at all in harmony.
Government should
immediately establish as the only adult unions of legal
recognition as the civil unions - and that even those
"married" in the Christian or other religious
institutions are not recognized in civil life as having been
pair bonded or protected. Those married in the
Church would need to acquire a civil union in the secular
government to have all legal protections and responsibilities.
In this way we no longer have to essentially violate religious
rights with bastardizing marriage - we set a clear and distinct
civil procedure where all adult unions are handled exactly the
same, and we don't limit recognized unions as only being of two
adults. Those who seek unions of more than two
would be bound by the same constraints and duties as those of
two parties. And we'd have a logical, ethical,
and Constitutional approach that removes Government from
invading the religious "marriage" area and would have
something distinct for legal purposes.
The consistent
application of civil unions would provide a clear and distinct
recognition for application of all secular situations -
survivorship, retirement, benefits, divorces, and all
transactions within government. One set standard,
separate and distinct from the Church, and one that would be
clear to all - not violative of those with religious convictions
- and without the appearance of the leftist homosexual community
exploiting marriage for political reasons.
I am not
unsympathetic to homosexuals and polygamists who seek to have
their lifestyles recognized and made equal as the marriages we
see with straights. Yet, it seems queer that
gays who have no use for the Church in any way and levy
intolerance and bigotry toward non-secular institutions should
seek to embrace an institution of
theirs.
So if our pursuit
of equality is truly a pursuit of equality, then we must adopt a
consistent secular institution for administering recognition of
adult bonds. We must not seek to divide or
conquer or to punish our adversaries or to act like children
with jealousy and indignation. We should advocate
for a total overhaul of our civil union system that applies to
all, is distinct from the Church, and is not called
marriage. Marriage should always remain a
Churchcentric recognition and distinctly separate from the
Secular Government. And marriages should only be
administered and regulated by the church of your faith and the
duties and responsibilities should be set forth by the Church
and dissolution of marriages should be handled by the
Church.
Secular legal
procedures for adult bonds should be handled distinctly and not
called marriage. This would end the
debate. And it would ensure equality for all.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment