But I am a supporter of civil unions.
I fully expect that the Supreme Court will cave in to the inertia of the false premise that gays have a right to be married and we'll have Government infringing on the right of free exercise of religion.
And mind you, this argument about "gay marriage" has nothing to do with equality of same sex couples to be joined together with legal protections. This discussion is a clever way, an insidious way, for the humanists and religion-hating left to invade religion and to dominate it - to marginalize it - and ultimately to go toward taxing church property and income.
The history of gay marriage is a short one. Up until the early 1990's, gay marriage was not even desired by a majority of gay people. I've lived over half a century and know full well that homosexuals wanted nothing that resembled societal institutions. Up until this point, the majority of gay men wanted to do a different guy every night and the promiscuity of the community was the norm, not the exception. While lesbians were nesters like most women, gay men had no sense or need to have their coupling recognized since a gay couple had a shelf life of less durability than a loaf of bread without preservatives.
I am fully aware of the need to have gay couples to have their legal standing equally protected as straight couples who have that marriage license. Having been in a three year relationship that unfortunately ended in my lover's passing from AIDS, I understand survivorship rights, etc. I am not obtuse to the need of our lives being made whole and for our relationships being recognized, but I certainly do not advocate invading the religious institution of marriage and to whore the definition of marriage for my selfish needs.
The problem our society has allowed to persist is the invasion of the Federal Government into our lives - and to take as their own, in violation of the separation of church and state, the institution of marriage - a specific and unique religious ceremony. When our society allowed the Government to bastardize the religious institution of marriage and to codify it as their own legal recognition of couples, we started down a slippery slope of unconstitutional conduct. Marriage is ONLY a religious ceremony and recognition. Government had no authority to steal the name and to use it as their legally binding label for coupling.
What must happen is for there to be a distinct CIVIL adult coupling union that is not called marriage - marriage should be pushed back to the religious arena where it belongs, and civil authorities should have "civil unions" which would not be limited to just two adults of whatever gender these people are. We cannot begin to demand that gays should be allowed to marry when that is the extent of the redefining of terms goes. When we whine as homosexuals that straights are bigoted because they have the audacity to limit marriage to two disparate genders, how is it you have the audacity to merely redefine marriage only to the extent that you maintain protection for couples of two but extend the definition to same genders. This is not tolerance -this is not ending discrimination - this is merely trading gender bigotry to plurality bigotry. In short, those gays who advocate for gay marriage and nothing more are just as bigoted and discriminatory as red necks who want to confine marriage to two different genders.
Civil unions would be all encompassing - ANY NUMBER and ANY GENDER coupling would be permitted to be legally recognized and binding - all responsibilities and benefits that current exist in dualistic marriage coupling would be provided to adult couple bonds - from 2 to how many people that wish to be bound legally. If the goal of gay marriage advocates is to have fairness and to end discrimination, then advocating ONLY FOR GAY MARRIAGE is antithetical to the goal - you merely swap the type of discrimination you impose. And don't think for a minute that those who you screw by limiting the redefinition of marriage to what suits your selfish gay interests won't suddenly seek to get theirs afterwards. You establish a precedent and now you not only impose your sexual orientation on the religions, but you open the floodgates to impose marriage, a religious institution, on polygomists as they'll seek what you just got.
I fully grasp that the desire of gay marriage advocates is to force religious institutions to accept marrying gays and that ultimately if the Supreme Court agrees that there is a right of gay marriage, that churches will be FORCED to marry gays - and when the other disenfranchised polygomists seek to get theirs - churches will be forced to marry them as well - and if Churches refuse, they'll be forced to drop their tax exempt status as retribution.
Pertaining to the Supreme Court decision at hand, I fully believe that the Jurists will cave in and to give gays what they want. We now have a Judiciary which is without backbone - which panders to the causes of the day - which is threatened by the Executive branch and caves and concedes its power - and which no longer actually decides cases based upon the law and the constitution, but reaches for consensus rather than bringing our lives back under Constitutional protection. And if this case is decided upon "sexual discrimination" than all hell will break loose as single gender restrooms disappear and everyone shits and pisses in the same room - showers in the same showers in schools and gyms and other places.
But we can be damned sure that women won't pay the same car insurance rate that men pay or will be deprived of invoking their biological excuses for killing their children.
Giving into gay marriage is just a step in a direction of further destroying Constitutional protections - keeping the state out of churches and violating everything that true Democrats used to believe in - Separation of Church and state and equal protection for all. Giving gays marriage doesn't advance equality - it just caves into those who whine the most and those who are the cause flavor of the day. It is not too late to advance civil unions which are distinct from religious marriages and which protect all adults and treats everyone equally. Gay marriage is not equal. It is just a less offensive discrimination since those who are left out are perverts and polygomists.
No comments:
Post a Comment