In a way, it was far more discouraging to see the New York legislature pass a gay-marriage bill than it was to see the now-familiar rogue judicial declarations, like those in Massachusetts, California, and Iowa. While constitutionally preferable to judicial imposition, New York’s statute is far more culturally distressing, a symbol not of a judicial overreach but of a more fundamental cultural change. The democratic process (yes, I know there was horse-trading and money involved) worked, and the elected legislature of New York performed its constitutional function. And in so doing, they struck yet another blow for self-indulgence and for adult-focused self-actualization.
Gay marriage is the child of no-fault divorce, which was itself born of the sexual revolution. In a time when the hard-earned experience of two full generations of sexual experimentation have taught us unequivocally that the two-parent, mother-father household is our nation’s best bulwark against abuse, poverty, addiction, and criminality, we should be moving away from the notion that our culture and our lives are best-served by legally protecting sexual experimentation and tinkering with the institution of marriage. Instead, we have scrutinized the cultural toll and said, “More, please.” After all, the heart wants what it wants, and we shouldn’t be unfair in doling out the sexual goodies.
Note while many against gay marriage take some measure in solace in the fact that this passed through legitimate legislative means instead of judicial fiat. French thinks that makes it worse.
Do I even have to point out his "Won't somebody think of the children!" cry? Let's presume that a "cultural toll" of "abuse, poverty, addiction, and criminality" will result from gay marriage.
I did not realize it was the role of the State was to restrict the freedoms of consenting adults in the name of the "greater good". Can one see the slippery slope French is going to? He already bemoans no-fault divorce and single parenthood.
Would he wish it illegal to have a child if you are unmarried? The statics would show children of single parents are at greater risk of all the things he worries about.
That's the real tell. Having a child out of wed-lock, and divorcing your spouse are big no-nos for many churches. But they are legal actions. By comparing gay marriage to activities that are legal (if "immoral") and French lets the cat out of the bag.
Another question: is being raised by a gay parent is some sort of double whammy? Because then you have the gay factor and the single parent factor. Maybe one should make it so any gay that wants to raise a child has to be in a monogamous government-approved relationship. That way they only have the gay factor and not the single-parent factor.
After all, if we're governing by actuary tables why shouldn't we craft the law into something that yields the "best" results? It's not like government has any other purpose or limits to its power.
Heck, if his real problem is with the children, why not allow gay marriage but ban gay adoption and lesbian pregnancy. That way the defective gay parenting can't infect the next generation.
Here we see the natural instinct of many right and left to look to the government to "fix" things, to look to the government to regulate social justice.
It's times like this when the big government wing of the Right rears up and becomes obvious. The sad part is that the Left is still outpacing them in the vast controls of their paternalistic governance.
Is Mr. French a fan of the White House's good eating "guides"? Or how about Mayor Bloomberg's crusade to eliminate smoking and fatty foods?
Here's a related quote from Bloomberg himself
Government should not tell you what to do unless there’s a compelling public purpose.
Note that, a compelling public purpose is sufficient to intrude onto your life.
Technically, I am against gay marriage. It's for the same reason I am technically against straight marriage.
I find the idea of going to the government for approval on your spouse to be superfluous at best, creepy at worst. Why should matters of love and long term companionship depend on meeting the demands of the state?
It's also interesting that the effort in New York needed votes and financial support from several prominent members of the GOP party and caucus.
Personally, I think the government should butt out of marriage entirely, but that ain't going to happen. But my idea would be to go for two separate things: marriage and civil unions.
You marry someone by whatever means you or your church (if applicable) deems necessary. That's it. Marriage is between you, your significant other(s), your god, and whoever else you want (family, friends).
Then there is a legal contract entirely separate that shares whatever sharing property rights, powers of attorney, medical decisions and the like. That you and your spouse agree to. If you want to get married congratulations you can! If you want to get married by the Ordained North Umbrian Rail Fan Society well that's between you and the Rail-Heads
But, you see, that doesn't get the government in your pants. Right now all US marriage is polygamous: you, your sig other, and the US Gov. And sad to say, most of the gay-marriage people seem happy with that third party. And as Mr. French shows a bunch of straight marriage proponents are also just fine with Daddy-State blessing
There's also other ugly tactics at work here. The Pro side has not done much to make itself... easy to sympathize with.
Zombie has more on the same nonsense. Link not safe for work, nudity, and extremely offensive to Christians, which was the point of San Francisco's Hunky Jesus event.
This double-standard (and similar double-standards — take your pick) is destroying our national soul. I demand equal rights for all — the right to mock the target of your choice. The gay community wants to mock Christianity? Fine. Go for it. But then you necessarily must be prepared to take it on the chin uncomplainingly when it’s time to turn the tables and you are on the receiving end of the mockery.
That's another issue French touches on. He couples the suppression and harassment of anti-gay marriage speech to the advancement of pro-gay marriage laws.
I can see where he is going, especially given the prior links showing duplicity and flagrant double standards, but the connection is hard. People against X are being oppressed by State Y is not a compelling reason to not enact X.
Consider an alternate world where anti-gun activists were being kicked out of college because they would not sign onto a pro-gun platform. Is that a reason to be against enacting shall-issue conceal carry laws?
Roberta X has related thoughts.
I find myself amused by the reaction to the state of New York recognizing gay marriage; while predictable, it's also instructive. Most people -- yes, even anarcho-capitalists and libertarians -- go with what they're comfortable with rather than what's Constitutional or logical.
Again... it's not exactly constitutional to say: "The government's role is to promote a certain kind of family unit."
Still it's not like New York is a a bastion of freedom.
Now, if New York would only put the same kind of effort into reforming their firearms law. hey, I know -- they could start with that "full faith and credence" clause and recognize my License To Carry Handgun the same way they'll recognize a the marriage of a gay couple from Iowa or New Hampshire.
Consider all the people that think armed self defense is morally bankrupt and should be made illegal.
Instapundit has a similar stance.
Well, We're halfway there: So now that New York will have happily-maried gay couples, can we get started on letting them have the closets full of assault rifles?
And here's Trifecta's view on it.
More along similar lines of consistency of principles and the importance of using the proper mechanisms. And they poke a bit of fun on the President for his consistency and principles.
And I'll note that Steven Green's "perfect world" pretty-much about my stance. Basically keeping the government's big clumsy hands out of this business.
Liberty means that people are free to do things that you think are stupid, wasteful, offensive, or immoral. There is a difference between thinking an action is immoral and thinking it should be illegal. Totalitarianism is using the force of the State to make people do things you don't want them to do. Provided it is not an actual injury to another's rights, it doesn't matter why you don't like what they're doing, you are using the power of the State to take away a person's liberty.
No comments:
Post a Comment