Lately we've seen a rash of self-proclaimed conservatives, including Glenn Beck, who are stating they have no objection to same-sex "marriage." These folks claim it won't change their marriage if two guys or two gals tie the knot and perhaps it's time for the government to get out of the marriage business.
The fact is, by allowing same-sex "marriage", which can only happen by re-defining the definition of marriage, the end result will change your marriage. As for the state being involved in your marriage there are good reasons for the state, or society if you prefer, to care about and regulate marriage. They are showing a lack of historical knowledge about the reasons for states to regulate marriage laws, as well as not thinking through to the unintended consequences of redefining marriage. Not thinking things through is a hallmark of the liberal mind.
Open letter to conservatives who back same-sex marriage by David Kupelian
and
The Case for Marriage at National Review Online.
Even kittehs know better...
6 comments:
Opposition to homosexual marriage has been surprisingly weak. I think it's very true that there are few who understand what it would mean to radically redefine marriage.
Spot on post, Adrienne. Again, it is precisely on these kind of big-picture issues that the Left has been so successful in redefining fundamental parts of our culture and polity. Many of the talk-radio titans have completely collapsed on these kinds of issues -- Beck is notable because he has been so prominent as of late. And his position on this issue is troubling because on many other issues, he understands quite well the link between culture and politics.
The battle over marriage is about marriage but it is also about bigger issues -- the family, the role of religion in the public square, natural law, the nature of gender, etc. All of this stuff is involved, and allowing same-sex marriage would involve a fundamental shift in our polity in those regards.
In this we can see how the goalposts of what is considered normal have been moved. It wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was viewed as a disorder. Even the DSM defined it as such.
Fast forward to today and we debate with straight faces the propriety of two humans sharing the same sex formally marrying. To treat this whole thing as outlandish nonsense only earns scorn and the status of pariah.
How far we traveled, and it ain't in the right direction.
Spot on Adrienne, lets change the meaning and definition of words and history to cater to another minority view.If the gays want a legal term, use civil union. Marriage has been and always will be between a man and a woman.
Same sex marriage is a sin, and God will punish those who do it.
I love the kitteh picture. The cats are smarter than all these politicians and pundits who see nothing wrong with "adam & steve".
Or between one man and several women. Actually, polygamy is just as traditional and probably older than monogamy. It seems to me that marriage is a social convention, albeit a very useful social convention.
Post a Comment