Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Owen on Gay Marriage

This is a continuation of a long debate over the constitutional amendment up for voting in Wisconsin written by Owen, one of the guys in charge of Boots And Sabers - some choice tidbits:

The current debate about the marriage amendment has nothing to do with whether or not gay marriage should be legally recognized. It is already illegal. The current debate is about who gets to make that decision. The marriage amendment ensures that the defining of marriage will continue to rest in the hands of the people through their representative bodies.

...The vast majority of people in America oppose legalizing gay marriage and their sentiments show through their duly elected representatives. For this reason, the folks who want gay marriage legalized began – and continue – a very deliberate campaign to get gay marriage legalized through the only non-representative branch of government – the judicial branch.

The strategy is very simple. Keep suing until they get their way. Keep building the case law through sympathetic judges. They know that they can lose a thousand times, but they only have to win once.

Gay marriage and Civil Unions identical to marriage have now been legalized in two states. In both cases, they were legalized by the state supreme court without permitting the people of those states to have a voice in defining marriage.

....If our society wishes to legalize gay marriage at some point, then so be it. But we must move forward thoughtfully through our established representative bodies. To allow the courts to short-circuit this process and sweep away the definition of marriage against the public will, is to invite broad societal unrest.

Good stuff.


Matt said...

I will never understand your fascination with this subject. Who cares?

rightonq said...

First of all, I have to agree with Matt on this one a little. I feel that this issue ranks below naming of post offices in terms of legislative importance.

But that said, this issue wasn't started by conservatives. It was liberal gay activists trying to circumvent legislation and use the courts to get their desired outcome. Conservatives are responding to that move. Also, it could be said that the broader issue here is judicial activism - but that's a topic for another day.

I think the argument Owen makes is an interesting one. I believe another good argument against the "civil rights" argument that liberals use is that this is not in fact a civil rights issue - but rather the favoring of one type of relationship over another. The entire tax code is simply legislative favoring of certain people, groups, behaviors and businesses.

Frankly though, I think you have to separate the legal definition of marriage from the religious and spiritual definition. Two gay people saying vows is not illegal. The government just does not provide any legal recognition to it. My point is "so what". Gay unions are NOT missing out on a bunch of "cool" stuff that all of us lucky married people get. Two of the most oft cited "benefits" of marriage are hospital visitation (or perhaps the broader health related decisions) and inheritance. Both of those can be handled through other legal means. Don't forget that many heterosexual couples choose not to marry for a variety of reasons including the "marriage tax penalty". So for gay people to cry foul on this one is a just little over dramatic.

k2aggie07 said...

No matter what excuse they use, the only reason homosexuals are pushing for same-sex marriage legalization is to get the shiny stamp of soceital approval on what they do. Our society has tolerated and condoned enough. I think there has to be a line that we draw and say "Look, you want to do that -- fine, go ahead. But don't ask for me to say its great."

Thats all I'm doing. Drawing the line.

Matt said...

Preach it brother. Stand up for all us underrepresented Hetero's! The fact that one of your first posts was on homosexuality is telling of how much it bugs you. Look, guys can get married to guys, girls can get married to girls... I really couldn't give a rats behind. Is this subject more important than terrorism or world peace or education, healthcare, poverty, so on and so on? Apparently to you it's pretty high up there on the list. It's definetly not on my list and my list is 500 pages long.

k2aggie07 said...

It was one of my first posts because it was one of the first articles I read after making the blog. I didn't start the blog to discuss this as a burning topic. I post on things I read.

Like I said, I don't care if guys do guys, or girls do their thing together. Doesn't bother me one bit. I don't care if people don't wear their seatbelts, or if they smoke cigarettes, or do any number of things I, personally, disagree with.

The difference is that there isn't a national campaign forcing me to accept, for instance, bestiality, incest, or polygamy as a lifestyle that is on par with the norm. Homosexuals are thrusting their decision to the front of the political spectrum, and saying "Here, This is us, you have to sign off on this". I say, No...No I don't.

So really. Do it all you want your own home.

Incidentally I feel the same way about alchohol, drug usage, pornography, et cetera. Just because I know these things are wrong doesn't give me a right - in a free society - to limit other's actions. S'long as they're not bothering me (or endangering members of society), more power to them.

On that last thought, I do think the legalization of same-sex marriage could be potentially hazardous to society. I think it undermines one of the oldest institutions known to mankind, and could possibly harm our society on moral and physical (population) levels.

Matt said...

You should just come out and say it. On some level, you are homophobic... just admit it. There is absolutely no reason to think that legalizing gay marriage would be hazardous to "moral values" and especially not population levels. We've been through this before. How can you possibly think that making it NOT against the law to marry the spouse of your choosing, based on your biological tendency towards whatever sex, (5% or maybe 10% of the population is gay) would be damaging to population. That's ridiculous.

You're really just trying to in a nice way say, "My god says it is an abomination, therefore it is wrong and disgusting because He said so." There is no legal way of justifying your argument because it's based on your specific beliefs and there is no evidence to support the fact that it would harm anyone besides the two people CHOOSING to marry each other.

k2aggie07 said...

I guess if you think that the only reason people can be opposed to an action is through fear, thats your business. I'm not an achohol-phobe or whatever, but I don't condone alchoholism.

I simply do not agree with that lifestyle. I don't think its normal. I don't think Man is made for that.

Anything that changes the status quo has the potential to be harmful to society -- the question is whether that is a net positive or net negative effect.

Like I said before, these people can do whomever they please. I am against anti-sodomy laws (its none of my business what other folks do in the bedroom to each other).

I am opposed to this on religious levels, yes. That's a true statement. But I could just as easily show that this isn't something society needs to approve. I think society should be streamlined; that is, everything we do ought to be for a purpose. Laws, economic policies, morals, everyting. Dross and fat need to be trimmed.

Recognizing and condoning homosexual behavior and elevating it to the same status as heterosexual behavior is not in line with this policy. It simply doesn't benefit society in the same manner that marriage does.