Marriage, Bigotry and Cooties
Once age-old ideas are dispensed with by referring to them as bigoted, homophobic or even anti-American and ungodly, you can be sure that all real debate has ceased. By assigning a label, good or bad, to just about anything, we are saying “There is no further need for discussion.” That is probably the time to ditch the labels and dive deep into a conversation about whatever is being placed out-of-bounds. Gay marriage, for instance, is either reduced to a case of people being allowed to love whoever they wish to love, or an open door to people marrying a llama or warthog.
First, no one is being disallowed to love anybody. They can love, they can express their love, they can have spectacular ceremonies, they can have legally binding relationships and they can cohabit to their hearts content. Likewise, there is no mad rush of people looking to marry a vacuum cleaner or a moose. Sure, there is polygamy. And, there is polyandry, where a woman has multiple male spouses (A sin if ever there was one.) There may pop-up now and again a person who actually wants to marry their dog or cat. But, in a healthy society, they will probably be few and far between. “Healthy” being the operative term.
So, what's at stake? Basically traditional marriage and the limits on the constitutional power of judges. These are the primary issues—and, they are very, very big issues. In fact, they are issues of such import, that the rights of one tenth of one percent of Americans to be defined as legally married according to the law, pale by comparison. That is, by the way, the percentage of gay people that identify as being married.
Marriage between a man and a woman is the only relationship that can produce children. Not surprisingly, pretty much all of nature follows this rule, too, from insects to animals. And so has virtually every society, as far back as history allows. Traditional marriage, likewise, provides one of the most effective barriers against poverty for both adults and their offspring. By comparison, children living in single parent homes suffer a range of maladies including poverty, violent behavior, lower IQ, health issues like depression, drug addiction, alcoholism and even schizophrenia. Suicide rates increase substantially, as well. This is not news, but has been found time after time in study after study. That is why traditional marriages matters so.
As to the constitutional right of the courts to make law, essentially by fiat, without regard for what the constitution actually says, is to empower judges with powers the constitution has not given them. And, if they are not held accountable to a standard greater than their own opinion, then judges become the law. Who, then, will protect Americans from un-elected Judges, with nearly unlimited powers? The power to change the law rests solely with congress, making gay marriage a state issue. Not a Federal one. That is not a bigoted statement. To argue that it is, is the definition of bigotry.
If the states want to change the marriage laws, they have the right to do so, not The Supreme Court. The way the debate is being framed in the popular media, though, is like so many other debates with a lot of yelling back and forth “Your a hate-filled bigot! Shame on you!” The only thing lacking is someone sticking out their tongue and yelling “Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah” and then accusing the opposition of having cooties. We should be ashamed of ourselves. But I doubt that we will be.
Mark Magula
First, no one is being disallowed to love anybody. They can love, they can express their love, they can have spectacular ceremonies, they can have legally binding relationships and they can cohabit to their hearts content. Likewise, there is no mad rush of people looking to marry a vacuum cleaner or a moose. Sure, there is polygamy. And, there is polyandry, where a woman has multiple male spouses (A sin if ever there was one.) There may pop-up now and again a person who actually wants to marry their dog or cat. But, in a healthy society, they will probably be few and far between. “Healthy” being the operative term.
So, what's at stake? Basically traditional marriage and the limits on the constitutional power of judges. These are the primary issues—and, they are very, very big issues. In fact, they are issues of such import, that the rights of one tenth of one percent of Americans to be defined as legally married according to the law, pale by comparison. That is, by the way, the percentage of gay people that identify as being married.
Marriage between a man and a woman is the only relationship that can produce children. Not surprisingly, pretty much all of nature follows this rule, too, from insects to animals. And so has virtually every society, as far back as history allows. Traditional marriage, likewise, provides one of the most effective barriers against poverty for both adults and their offspring. By comparison, children living in single parent homes suffer a range of maladies including poverty, violent behavior, lower IQ, health issues like depression, drug addiction, alcoholism and even schizophrenia. Suicide rates increase substantially, as well. This is not news, but has been found time after time in study after study. That is why traditional marriages matters so.
As to the constitutional right of the courts to make law, essentially by fiat, without regard for what the constitution actually says, is to empower judges with powers the constitution has not given them. And, if they are not held accountable to a standard greater than their own opinion, then judges become the law. Who, then, will protect Americans from un-elected Judges, with nearly unlimited powers? The power to change the law rests solely with congress, making gay marriage a state issue. Not a Federal one. That is not a bigoted statement. To argue that it is, is the definition of bigotry.
If the states want to change the marriage laws, they have the right to do so, not The Supreme Court. The way the debate is being framed in the popular media, though, is like so many other debates with a lot of yelling back and forth “Your a hate-filled bigot! Shame on you!” The only thing lacking is someone sticking out their tongue and yelling “Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah” and then accusing the opposition of having cooties. We should be ashamed of ourselves. But I doubt that we will be.
Mark Magula