At the moment I suppose the consensus in the country is that “gay marriage” is a done deal. I find that interesting, especially when you consider that such an arrangement is literally and completely impossible. It is true that recent polls show a majority of Americans agree with the idea, but if you factor out the “I don’t really care” and “go along to get along” people I imagine it would come out to something like two to one against. This is not, and never has been, a popular idea, not that that matters in any possible way.
For all the time it raged the argument over this issue centered on the definition of marriage. An interesting concept, but no one apparently bothered to ask the central question: What is the definition of marriage? Since the question was never really asked in the general discussion, it was answered by people with a particular agenda either for or against, and hence was never really answered honestly. The reality is there is a simple and essential definition of marriage that constrains anything anyone might want to call marriage. It is simply this:
“The joining of two or more different parts, which fit together by design, to form a whole.”
First, let us stipulate that in the context of a human relationship there are only two parts. How one chooses to label oneself is irrelevant. This is about biology and physics, orientation and politics are immaterial. The human race is composed entirely of males and females. There is nothing else.
There are several key things one might notice about this definition. This is not a legal definition. Neither is it based on any moral or religious code or dogma. It is, in fact, an immutable and indisputable law of nature. There are no, and can never be any, arguments against it in this universe. There does not exist in any place or time in this universe the possibility that two people of the same gender can be married to one another. There simply is no way to do it.
As this is obviously the case, why then are we consumed with this issue? Well, it is very simple really, in fact it is the oldest trick in the book: divide and conquer. As with most progressive initiatives, this started out with a legitimate issue: equal protection under the law. In an effort to rectify this problem the concept of the civil union was developed and, while there was some opposition, it was soon adopted by cities, states, and even private enterprise throughout the country. This did, in fact, though not the ideal solution, solve the problem. Then again, that depends on what you thought the problem was.
Unfortunately, progressives do not see things the way the rest of us do. Equal protection was not the problem they were trying to solve, and the relative ease with which civil unions were adopted and accepted was problematic for them. They were not looking to address the legal matter, they just wanted to cause trouble, and this did not have that effect, at least not to the degree they had hoped. If you go back and look, you might notice that as soon as civil unions were accepted, they started in almost immediately on “gay marriage.” This is not by accident. They did not really want to go there, but by being reasonable and understanding that there really was a constitutional problem to be addressed, we left them no choice.
This practice is a standard operating procedure for progressives, and it continues to go on on many fronts. The “battle for equal rights” for women was resoundingly won by the end of the 1970’s. Why are they still fighting it? The battle for civil rights was resoundingly won by Dr. King and his followers in the 1960’s. Why are they still fighting it? Along the way other battles were won.
Environmental battles in particular were won with resounding success, but they are still being fought every day. The cost of these continued battles is overwhelming. It is one of the main reasons our economic and social order are in such chaos, which is, of course, the goal. Whenever a progressive takes up a cause you will find that sooner or later their actions will continue on once the initial issue has been addressed. The reason for this is these issues, these causes, are nothing more than a means to an end: power. It is no different with the issue of “gay marriage.”
Most of these battles hinge on the concept of equal rights. Upon close inspection however, one inevitably finds that what they are really fighting for is not equality under the law, which is what is guaranteed in the fourteenth amendment to the constitution, but sameness. Everyone is supposed to be the same. The reason for this is quite simple: bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator and they are much easier to control. Whether it is progressive immigration policies, education policies, fiscal policies, or just about any other domestic policy you want to look at, it is the same. Tyranny is the only end goal that fits this scenario. Their foreign policy seems to be geared toward weakening the country so their allies abroad have an easier time doing the same thing to their own people. Allies like Iran, the Muslim brotherhood and ISIS.
This sameness doctrine can be recognized very easily in the arguments and issues surrounding the “gay marriage” question. One of the arguments is that men and women are the same. This is, on its face, an idiotic notion, but there are millions of people who actually believe it. The truth is, men and women are different. Progressives know this. They are not trying to help anyone but themselves. It started in the 1960’s with the “women’s liberation” movement. As I stated before, there were some issues at that time which needed to be addressed, and since have been. But addressing those issues was not the goal of the progressives. Their goal was to drive a wedge between men and women, and they did so with great success.
The fact is, men and women are very different, and we are not just talking about the obvious physical differences. We are also different psychologically and emotionally. Those physical, psychological, and emotional differences are what make it possible for us to be married. Since the 1960’s we have been taught by the progressives that many of those differences are antagonistic. Not only are these differences compatible, they are actually sympathetic. They, of course, left the physical differences in play, but only to the degree needed to advance another destructive agenda.
The result has been the utter destruction of the moral center of the nation. Divorce used to be a rare thing, now about fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce. Why? Because they are not real marriages. Both men and women are entering marriage with self centered agendas that preclude the possibility of a successful marriage. Right now the national pastime is not baseball as most people think, and the most watched spectator sport is not football, which is the general consensus. Both of those activities have been replaced in those position by the same thing: sex.
I recently saw a photo online of a young women with a big smile holding up a sign that read “Proud Slut.” I have seen several instances where young women vociferously objected to being “slut shamed.” I am not sure these women understood what was happening. No one, at least no one with any credibility, is trying to “slut shame” anyone. What we are trying to do is simply ascertain why they are not ashamed. These women seem to have gotten the idea that by being recognized as a slut they have won some kind of victory. In reality all they have done is declare proudly to the world that they have absolutely no respect for themselves.
Understand that the difference between a “lady” and a “slut” is not so much the sex as it is the publicity. That said, women should also understand that the intimacy of a woman is the must valuable, most precious and most beautiful thing in all creation. Why would you want to give it away like Halloween candy? I know that many of you believe that since I am a man I am not really qualified to make such a value judgment. The truth is exactly the opposite.
This trend toward amorality is most visible in the gay community. Many different ethnic and cultural groups across the country have pride parades. The gay community is the only one with pride parades that consist to great degree of naked or nearly naked people marching up and down the street. If we are to call our society a civilization, this can not be acceptable. In any civilized society it is incumbent upon the members of that society to show a minimum level of respect for the other members of it, even if not for themselves. So to all you sluts out there, gay or straight, please try to have at least some respect for everyone else, even if you have none for yourself.
So how do we fix this? How do we have a civilized society and find a way to respect the rights of others to be who they are? First, everyone needs to understand that respect is, and has always been, a two way street. The gay community will never receive the respect it wants until it shows some kind of respect to everyone else by keeping their private matters private.
By the way, I know a lot of gay people think that karma is about revenge, or getting even. I have seen it presented that way in several places. Karma is about justice, not revenge. If you do not know the difference, please stay out of the discussion. As it is, you are sewing a lot of bad karma right now.
Earlier in this post I wrote about the concept of the civil union, also known as a domestic partnership. I also indicated that while this does, strictly speaking, satisfy the legal requirements of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, it is not really the best solution. The reason I believe this is because it takes us back to the issue of “separate, but equal.” This concept has been roundly rejected by the courts and by the society in general, as well it should. While one group gets a domestic partnership the other group gets a marriage license, both intended to have, legally speaking, the same result. This is problematic for a lot of reasons, not the lest of which is the one mentioned above, but there are other problems with it.
As I thought about this I was forced to make some interesting conclusions. My wife and I recently celebrated out twenty fifth wedding anniversary. Yes, we do have a marriage license issued by the County of Los Angeles. If they were to revoke our marriage license today, would we be any less married tomorrow? No. That action would in no way have any effect on our marriage beyond the legal issues, and while they are important, they do not in any way define, or even indicate, whether or not we are married. We are not married because the government gave us a license. In fact, I think it is quite arrogant of any government entity, especially in this country, to assume they have the authority to have any say in the matter of a marriage between a consenting man and woman, or a relationship between any two consenting adults for that matter. The only legitimate reason for it is to record with the government that a spousal relationship exists so the attending legal matters can be addressed.
There are myriad legal matters that attend to a spousal relationship. Things like tax law, spousal rights in health or even life and death issues, etc. The question is, why do we need a “license” when a simple document recording is all that is required?
At this point I think it is important to make some distinctions. The terms “husband” and “wife” are gender specific terms that are applicable only in a marriage between a man and a woman. The word “spouse” is a gender neutral term which can reasonably be applied to any spousal relationship. I would submit that in order to be a husband two things must be true: 1. You are a man. 2. You have a wife. Likewise, in order to be a wife the opposite must be true: 1. You are a woman. 2. You have a husband. On the other hand, the only thing you need to be a spouse is a spouse. I say this because I think it is counter productive, and in fact, down right destructive, to try to force changes to the language especially if it is in pursuit of some asinine political agenda. Instead, we need to use the language in its proper form for the sake of clarity, even if for nothing else.
What is needed is a system that provides for equal protection under the law for any spousal relationship without running afoul of the “separate but equal” problem, and without pretending like it has any effect on, or is in any way related to, the institution of marriage. I submit that we need to create a system wherein two people can draft a spousal contract and record it just as you would a marriage license or domestic partnership agreement. These contracts would specifically use the term “spouse” exclusively. Such contracts could be more than just spousal statements, they could include other information as well, like prenuptial agreements, etc.
It is incumbent upon all of us to at least try to restrain our rhetoric and, indeed, our actions to the realm of reality. The concept of “gay marriage” is one that is well outside of that realm. There just is not any way to do it. We must also keep in mind that equal protection under the law only applies to the laws created by us through our legislative systems. It does not apply to anything else. If a constitutional amendment were passed stating that I am a bald eagle it might be, strictly speaking, legally binding, but when I try to fly off of the roof of my apartment building it will definitely end badly. Such is the case with “gay marriage.”
It may seem to progressives, and everyone else at the moment, that a great progressive victory has been won. That is not the case. Nothing has been won. Something that can not exist, will not stand, all the wishful thinking in the world notwithstanding.