Topic: How to Win the Marriage Debate

[Pandora]

The big news on the culture-war front is a federal court's striking down of Proposition 8, California's constitutional amendment protecting marriage.  In a two-to-one ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote, "The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry."

Now, I'm not sure why the judges mention a "disfavored group," as if singling out a "favored" one for unequal treatment would be okay.  As far as I know, the 14th Amendment, on which the court based its ruling, doesn't offer equal protection to only those the current fashions deem "disfavored."  Thus, I think this is an example of emotionalism influencing a ruling and its language, sort of as if a judge sentenced a defendant and, adding an adjective, announced him as "stupid" Mr. Smith.  Calling a group "disfavored" is similarly a subjective judgment.  This is not the only thing the judges were subjective about, however.

Speaking to bias, some may point out here that the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned court in the nation and that the two judges who ruled against Prop. 8 were appointed by Democrats.  Yet the reality is that they're hardly alone: virtually everyone -- including conservatives -- misses the 800-pound gorilla with the pink tutu and rainbow flag in the middle of the marriage debate.

The court's reasoning is that a state cannot deny homosexuals the right to "marry" if that right has already been established for others.  This certainly seems to accord with the 14th Amendment, which reads, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  So, by the judges' lights, since Prop. 8 abridges for one group a privilege afforded everyone else, it is unconstitutional.

But what really is the central issue here?  It isn't whether marriage is a right or a privilege; it isn't whether it is covered under the Constitution.  It isn't even whether or not homosexuals have a right to "marry."  The crux of the matter is this: what is this right or privilege?

If the court rules that there is a right to a certain thing, it must know what that thing is.  Yet if the court accepted that the thing called "marriage" is the union between a man and woman, there would be no debate.  The judges would simply state that, just like anyone else, homosexuals have a right to marry -- to form that time-honored union between themselves and a member of the opposite sex.

Now, some will say the court accepts that there has been a redefinition of marriage.  If so, they had best tell us what it is.  Because, you see, our leftist marriage engineers have not redefined marriage.

They have undefined it.

They have not said that marriage is the union between any two people.  If they did, they'd render themselves just as "exclusionary" and "discriminatory" as those they decry and relinquish a hammer with which they bludgeon tradition.  They have not offered any alternative parameters for marriage.  They've simply implied that the correct definition -- the one accepted for millennia in Western civilization -- is wrong.

Yet if these leftists cannot say what marriage is, how can they be so sure about what it isn't?  If they cannot offer a definition they're certain is right, how can they be so confident that the right definition is wrong?

But the point is this: the court obviously doesn't accept the definition of marriage embraced by most people worldwide today.  If it did, it would have ruled as indicated earlier.  Yet there also is no noted alternative definition by which to go.  Thus, it seems that before the judges could rule on the right to this thing called marriage, they'd have to rule on what this thing is in the first place.  So have they ruled that there is a right to they-know-not-what.

Of course, the judges certainly understand marriage to be some kind of legally sanctioned union between or among different parties.  But this takes in a lot of territory.  If this is all it is and everyone has a right to it, how can we deny it to polygamists (and their conception of marriage has infinitely more historical precedent than does faux marriage)?

This is where some roll their eyes and say that these things will never happen.  But while such scoffing is rhetorically effective, it's not very intellectual.  I'll first point out that people in the 1950s would have likewise laughed off the notion that granting homosexuals the right to "marry" would be a major social and legal movement 50 years later.  More significantly, however, ideas matter.  The precedents we set matter.  And when you undefine something, nothing is excluded.  No boundaries means no limits.

This is why the left's actions do, in fact, threaten marriage.  To fail to respect the institution's time-honored definition and also refuse to offer any alternative definition is to seek to destroy the edifice without a plan for what will take its place.  It is to imply that marriage can mean anything.  And if something can mean anything, it means nothing.

As for conservatives, they have been suckered again.  Without even realizing it, they have allowed the left to frame the debate -- as a matter of rights -- when it is first and foremost a matter of definitions.  To argue it as a matter of rights is to lose the debate; to control the definitions can render that debate irrelevant.

This is why, mind you, I would not have written Prop. 8 as its framers did: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."  Instead, it should have been, "Marriage is hereby legally defined as a union between a man and a woman."  The actual text gives the courts wiggle room to find in favor of currently invalid or unrecognized "marriages"; the suggested text makes it so that there is nothing else to find in favor of.  (Of course, ambitious judges can find a way around anything, but they'd have to do a bit more creative constitutional trampling.)

Yet controlling the definitions starts with controlling the vocabulary.  For a definition won't take hold in society unless the word it defines first does.  This is why conservatives should never use the term "gay marriage," as this is an explicit acknowledgement that such an institution exists.  Nor should they use "heterosexual marriage," for what is the other side of that coin?

What is most readily accepted is that which is assumed.  From the get-go, conservatives should have insisted that marriage is marriage, a union between a man and woman and nothing else.  This would have put odd alien fantasies about marriage, whatever they may be, in perspective.  Because you cannot have a right to that which doesn't exist.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/how_to_win_the_marriage_debate.html#ixzz1lp41kBqQ

I believe Mr. Duke is onto something here, as far as the Ninth Circuit's decision goes.  We here have gotten there a little sooner in one respect, however, in emphatically stating that what the *sinister* is doing is redefining marriage for us all.  Duke rightly asks the question, "what is the new definition, then?"

They can't say, and won't, because doing so will take the next step -- polygamy -- off the table.  And understand, that IS the plan.

[Alphabet Soup]

My marriage debate argument is even more simple: "You want to let faggots "marry"? GTF away from me or I'll kill you".

[Pandora]

 

Well, that's succinct.

[Glock32]

Just so. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. This in and of itself does not preclude homosexuals, they preclude themselves because they do not like the parameters of the union. Well, tough sh1t. That's what. There's nothing in law that singles them out for unequal treatment with respect to marriage.

This is nothing more than an attempt to forcibly tear down longstanding constructs of civilization, directly against the wishes of the majority. The law is no more obliged to accommodate man-man and woman-woman unions as "marriage" than it is a union of more than 2 people, though you can rest assured that will be next.  As will unions of immediate blood relatives, unions of minors, unions with animals, unions with inanimate objects. The Left's relativism begets nihilism.

[Weisshaupt]

Just so. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. This in and of itself does not preclude homosexuals, they preclude themselves because they do not like the parameters of the union. Well, tough sh1t. That's what. There's nothing in law that singles them out for unequal treatment with respect to marriage.

I see no reason that a Civil Union arrangement shouldn't be available, on terms that work for Homosexuals.  Given the differences, it may even make sense to have a Gay Male and a Lesbian version of the contract, since their legal  needs are as likely to differ from each other as well as from Hetrosexual couples ( and I have gotten many gays to admit this is the case)

However the Gay/Lesiban community won't accept a legal contract that serves their needs because they could care less about that.  What they want is to force people to accept them and treat them with respect, and calling what they do "marriage" won't do that.  But being liberals they can't tell the difference between words and their meanings. They think that forcing people to call them a married couple will also force them to be treated in a way that Married hetrosexual couples are treated, like the word has some magic property binding those who use it  to think and behave a certain way. Just like Peta thinks you will stop eating fish if they call them SeaKittens

[Pandora]

Just so. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. This in and of itself does not preclude homosexuals, they preclude themselves because they do not like the parameters of the union. Well, tough sh1t. That's what. There's nothing in law that singles them out for unequal treatment with respect to marriage.

I see no reason that a Civil Union arrangement shouldn't be available, on terms that work for Homosexuals.  Given the differences, it may even make sense to have a Gay Male and a Lesbian version of the contract, since their legal  needs are as likely to differ from each other as well as from Hetrosexual couples ( and I have gotten many gays to admit this is the case)

They can have that right now; just go get a lawyer and have it drawn up.

However the Gay/Lesiban community won't accept a legal contract that serves their needs because they could care less about that.  What they want is to force people to accept them and treat them with respect, and calling what they do "marriage" won't do that.  But being liberals they can't tell the difference between words and their meanings. They think that forcing people to call them a married couple will also force them to be treated in a way that Married hetrosexual couples are treated, like the word has some magic property binding those who use it  to think and behave a certain way. Just like Peta thinks you will stop eating fish if they call them SeaKittens

And they believe that acceptance and respect will come through government-sponsored recognition of their status.  So, the goal is to get government to redefine marriage for the benefit of homosexuals, and, make no mistake, it will be the government imposing it on us as teh gayz cannot do it themselves.

I was listening to a libertarian discuss this (radio) today and he holds the argument that as marriage is a legal contract, it is discriminatory against gayz to not allow them to enter into this contract.  The rebuttal to this is gayz are allowed to contract in this manner, but must meet the requirements, including one man/one woman.  At this point, the question of "love" always comes up -- "but they can't marry whom they love" -- although "love" is not one of the legal requirements.

Such arguments for the gay "right" to marry always fall on the mechanical side, i.e. it's a legal contract, period, and religion and the sanctity of marriage, the human and sociological elements, do not belong in the debate.  This, however, is instantly contradicted the minute "love" is brought into the argument because even gayz will tell you of their desires for commitment and family thus dragging those elements right back into the conversation.

What marriage is cannot be separated into convenient components for the sake of convenient arguments is what I'm trying to say here, and I don't know that I've done it very well.

[charlesoakwood]

The term I have for homosexual is aberration.
Acting out of homosexuality is aberrant.
Acting out of homosexuality in public is felonious.

felonious (adj) - Bing Dictionary
fe·lo·ni·ous [ f? l?nee ?ss ]   Audio player

    relating to felony: relating to felonies or a felony

Synonyms: illegal, wrong, against the law, illicit, unlawful, felonious, lawless, illegitimate

And by standards of the Church and the Synagog it is lawless.

[Weisshaupt]

They can have that right now; just go get a lawyer and have it drawn up.

Yes, but not for $20--$50.  Marriage is a common contract, and as such it is used in a number of areas, from inheritance, to banking, to hospital admissions and insurance.
I see no reason to deny Gays and Lesbians from a similar civil contract, specifically tailored to meet the needs of those groups. And the needs do vary quite a bit because they are very unlikely to have children.  I would even support a two stage civil  marriage system based on the existence of progeny. You are "Civil Unioned" before the law when you have no children, No Fault Divorce laws are in effect, etc.  Once you have children, we go old school - proof of wrong doing would be required to get a divorce, and the party who broke the contract  forfeits any joint property and custody if the wronged spouse wishes it.    

Such arguments for the gay "right" to marry always fall on the mechanical side, i.e. it's a legal contract, period, and religion and the sanctity of marriage, the human and sociological elements, do not belong in the debate.  This, however, is instantly contradicted the minute "love" is brought into the argument because even gayz will tell you of their desires for commitment and family thus dragging those elements right back into the conversation.

That is because there are in effect, two contracts.  The first is the civil contract, which determines how the laws will treat your union. As stated above I feel its a bit discriminatory that one union is singled out to be recognized by the state while others are denied the ability to form and have a short form contract at low cost.

The second is a societal contract. We take vows in front of our friends, family, congregation and God  as the second, sacred, and to most people, more important compact. In our ceremony, our guests also took a vow to do what was required to support us in our Marriage,  to give us good council, and to help us keep the vows we made to each other that day. But that agreement is implicit- the sacredness of the second, spiritual contract can only be kept that way if we all keep to the tenants of that contract - being faithful, helpful, and loving to our spouse and children, and help others do the same.

Its this second compact that gays and lesbians wish to force access to, thinking that if they can get you to call it Marriage, that they can gain the acceptance and support of the community, even when others feel that their union is a Sin before the eyes of God.  

Of course there is nothing preventing gays from having their own spiritual ceremony, finding "Christian" congregations that support their unions, and obtaining that same promise to support them from friends and family. However, that isn't enough.  And neither would having the civil government arrangements I suggest above.  Because this isn't about having the same convenient short form legal contract, and this isn't about having a community of people who will support them in their union. This is about trying to  make people who think homosexuality is sinful tow their Politically correct  line and force people to  say that they approve in public , when they don't, never will, and shouldn't have to do any such thing.

[Pandora]

That is because there are in effect, two contracts.  The first is the civil contract, which determines how the laws will treat your union. As stated above I feel its a bit discriminatory that one union is singled out to be recognized by the state while others are denied the ability to form and have a short form contract at low cost.

No.  Wrong.  They are entitled to exactly the same union as we are by following the same requirements.  They don't want to do that, they want their own criteria to apply instead, so tough sh*t; pay the extra money for the legal protection.

The institution of marriage is singled out for recognition by the State because of the benefits it brings to society, said institution existing before state recognition even brought attendant benefits.  Gays in their twisted imitation of marriage do not.

[Alphabet Soup]

Once upon a time I was much more tolerant of homer-sexurals. That was before they embarked on a plan to demand acceptance of their degenerate lifestyle. That was before they shoved their disgusting predilections in my face. That was before they threatened the very social fabric of our civilization.

I now have zero time, inclination, or respect for a single one of them. They had best stary the hell out of my way because otherwise I will mess them up.

As Pan and Glock32 have said, they already have the same rights as us - anything else is giving the perverts superior rights to you and me. That's totally F'd up and intolerable. I will defend to their last breath my civilization.

[IronDioPriest]

I have always been tolerant of homosexuals. That has not precluded me from gritting my teeth and being repulsed when I encounter them. That's what tolerance is: you stand down and put up with something with which you disagree, or which repulses you.

That's all that used to be required. I was taught that to be a good citizen, you tolerate those who are different from you; cause them no harm so long as they cause you no harm. Don't go looking for trouble just because somebody is different.

I've lived my life by that code, and I've been pleasantly surprised at how well it works. I've even learned a thing or two from people who are different from me, because I have a live-and-let-live attitude, and do not treat others with disrespect.

But the radical homosexual activists have really done a bang-up job of agitating for their cause. Who would have thought that men porking each other in the arse and sucking each other off (forgive the imagery) would ever even be close to mainstreamed.

Now my children are threatened by the radical homosexual's failure to be tolerant. That pisses me right the f**k off. Makes me feel negatively toward all homosexuals - even the ones who understand tolerance, and who mind their own business. I don't want to feel that way, but I find myself feeling that way toward all kinds of Leftist victim groups these days. It's easier and much more convenient just to generalize, and not worry about trying to parse my hatred between the good ones and the bad ones.

[Libertas]

What 'Soup said!