By Barry Curtis
In 1996 Republicans and conservatives won a victory on the federal level (or so it seemed) by enacting the defense of marriage act. (DOMA), unfortunately we have been losing ever since. DOMA specifically prohibits the federal government from recognizing same sex marriage and in addition denies one state from recognizing a same sex marriage from a different state. Same-sex marriage is legally recognized in several jurisdictions within the United States.
As of April 2013, nine states—Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington—as well as the District of Columbia and three Native American tribes have legalized same-sex marriage, representing 15.7 percentage of the U.S. population. In addition, Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions and California, which briefly granted same-sex marriages in 2008, now recognizes them on a conditional basis.
The fundamental losing issue that conservative will face is simple. We Americans have a built in FAIRDAR (that’s a lame take on the gay term gaydar). We have a core belief system that error on the side of reason and fairness. Dr. King said, “The ark of the moral universe is long but it leans toward justice.” Simply put, we don’t like denying anyone else the same rights that you and I enjoy. It is clear that our FAIRDAR rejects any position that denies the basic of human rights to others.
To deny any American the right to marry whom he or she pleases, the right to jointly own property, the right to will thru legal means to a loving spouse or loved one, the right to see a loved one on their death beds and to be kept abreast of their medical condition, to deny medical benefits that extend to same sex partners is fundamentally a flawed and unreasonable argument.
Well conservatives what is our argument? What is the position that we take in denying same sex marriage. The only dissent that makes sense is a Biblical or religious argument. That’s great, but that is not a legal position and it fails to hold constitutional muster.
Conservatives what is the argument? What is the solid constitutional position that we as conservatives can take to deny same sex marriage? Not a religious argument! Not a sexual preference argument! Where is the constitutional prowess that we conservatives have on virtually every other issue? The silence of reason is deafening.
It my opinion, any argument that we as conservatives promote that denies the right of any other American to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is dead on arrival in the hearts of Americans. This unreasonable position is a losing proposition for any competent constitutionalist and it is a non-starter at the ballot box.
So, my fellow conservatives use your FAIRDAR.
Same-sex marriage is an injustice, a tyrannical ploy being perpetrated upon our society, the pernicious consequences of which are simply mocked and laughed at by its supporters. Ignorance and prejudice have taken the place of knowledge and reason. Caprice and passion substituted for prudence and virtue. The happiness of society, the good of all families, and the welfare of mankind fall victim to the injustice of selfish adult love, which calculates every thing for itself, while taking no notice of a child’s best interest or the public advantage of a government promoting ONLY the traditional family unit.
Same-sex marriage is antithetical to the Rule of Law, for the principle object of laws in general is to correct bad inclinations, to prevent vicious habits, to hinder their effects, and to eradicate the passions; or at least to contain them within proper limits. Same-sex marriage makes an implicit statement that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, and that sex is irrelevant to parenting. Once same-sex marriage becomes legally and socially acceptable, more women will decide to raise children together. Teen aged boys without fathers are at risk for juvenile delinquency, violence, criminal activity, gang membership, and incarceration. Teen aged girls without fathers are at risk for early sexual activity, multiple sex partners, out of wedlock pregnancies, and sexually transmitted disease.
Same-sex marriage is perfectly contrary to the principle of marriage, having more resemblance to divorce and adultery, same-sex marriage purposely separates a child from at least one biological parent, thereby creating broken homes, not as a matter of extraordinary circumstances, but as routine. Same-sex marriage proponents callously ignore a child’s Natural Right to know, and be raised by, both biological parents, and make the most preposterous and pretentious claim that marriage was instituted by civil society primarily for the benefit of any two loving adults. Take away Natural Laws, and that moral tie which supports justice and honesty in a whole nation and establishes also particular duties in families, or in other relations of life; and man becomes the most savage and ferocious of all animals,licentiousness becomes the consequence of independence.
After what has been said, let us be satisfied with observing, that the fitness in favor of the sanction of traditional marriage, is so much stronger and more pressing, as same-sex marriage throws into the system of humanity an obscurity and confusion, which borders on very much upon the absurd, if it does not come quite close up to it. There is, certainly, no comparison between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, in respect to beauty and fitness; the first is a work of the most perfect reason; the second is defective, and provides no manner of remedy against a great many disorders. Now even this alone points out sufficiently on which side the truth lies, and to reject this truth leads us insensibly to a kind of pyrrhonism, which would also be a subversion of the Rule of Law and social order.
Here are two truths regarding marriage: (1) A man creating a family with another man is not equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.
Same-sex marriage PURPOSELY separates a child from at least one biological parent. Non-biological parents lack the advantage of consanguineous insight leaving them all too often ill-prepared to protect the child from unfamiliar hazards. Left unrecognized and unattended, vicious habits, and irregular passions, obfuscate the mind; and neglect, levity, and prejudices of the ill-equipped non-biological parents precipitate a child into the grossest of errors, rendering the child’s conduct a burden to the happiness of both society and the life of the child.
Same-sex marriage disregards the natural order of procreatory responsibility, not only confusing the natural disposition of parental authority; but undermining the legal principle that children have a right to a relationship with their biological parents, depriving a child access to their biological parent’s genetic, cultural and social heritage, not for extraordinary circumstances, but as a matter of routine. Same-sex marriage amounts to institutionalized adultery through a hostile takeover of civil society by the State. Children will no longer be entitled to their biological parents, as the transitory wants of same-sex adults will have taken precedence over a child’s best interest.
Children are not pets one purchases from rescue shelters(adoption clinics) and puppy mills(insemination and surrogacy). Children are human beings endowed with a natural desire to be procreated from an engendered act of love between a husband and a wife. Same-sex marriage is adulterous by nature and thereby destructive to not only children, but to civilization.
Same-sex marriage couples selfishly demand “Marriage Equality”, yet, in return, they offer LESS-THAN-EQUAL protection of the child’s happiness than can be afforded through the presence of both biological parents. In the name of “Marriage Equality”, same-sex marriage leaves the child fully aware that his family is, in all truth, not at all “equal”, natural, nor complete. The use of the term “marriage Equality” by same-sex marriage proponents selfishly ignores the child’s perspective of “equality”.
Same-sex marriage proponents profess that it is love which gives the right to join the institution of marriage, yet, in doing so, they selfishly violate the principle LOVING objective of this noble institution; to protect a child’s Natural Right to be raised by both biological parents.
In fine, same-sex marriage surmounts to nothing more than an unnatural extravagance which the supporters most ignorantly claim to be a “right”.
“No one has a right to do that which, if everybody did it, would destroy society.” —Immanuel Kant