Hey, This Slope is Slippery!

Well, looks like the words "marriage" and "unconstitutional" have been redefined in Massachusetts, according to this story.

With its decision to back marriage and not the concept of civil unions, the court set the stage for the nation's first same-sex marriages to take place beginning in mid-May.

We all knew it was coming, but this is still a bit of a shock. There are 2 aspects of this story, however, that I find particularly interesting. First of all, there's the classic "making same-sex marriage illegal is discrimination" argument:

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion. The bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

Bullsh*t. That's all I have to say to that. I hope they realize that same-sex married couples still won't be equal. Why? Because THEY CAN'T REPRODUCE. That's why traditional marriage is so important. No matter how many laws you make, homosexual couples can never be equal to heterosexual ones. Ever. Nice try with that logic, though.

Let's skip ahead a bit and look at another argument that's actually very easy to refute:

The state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," the court wrote. "Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions."

This always cracks me up, because people still think that marriage is a right. Marriage is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. Also, it's only meant for certain people.

Saying that same-sex couples are being deprived of marriage is like saying that a cancer patient is being deprived of heart surgery. IT'S ONLY MEANT FOR SOME PEOPLE.

As much as I hate to say this, all this definition crap makes me think the government should stop trying to do anything with marriage, but then I remember that its purpose is to establish families, which hold society together. Some people seem to have forgotten that.

Now, among all this talk about "equal rights" and such, another story jumped out at me:

Despite this week’s lifting of the same-sex marriage ban in Massachusetts, a majority of Americans continues to oppose same-sex marriage, and nearly half oppose civil unions. According to a FOX News poll conducted in the days following the Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts, 66 percent of Americans oppose and 25 percent favor same-sex marriage. These new results are similar to those from August 2003, as well as results from 1996, when 65 percent of the public said they opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry.

The poll they refer to was conducted last November, but I doubt that there's been a huge change since then. In any case, I find it interesting that the majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but they're instituting it in Massachusetts anyway.

This could set a very dangerous precedent for future decisions. Can you say "judicial tyranny," children? If we let judges make all the decisions regardless of what the people say, we'll no longer have a democratic nation.

I think that, as a nation, we have 2 options that will settle this effectively:

1) Let the voters in each state decide if they want same-sex marriage in that state only.

2) Using the national numbers as support, along with the Defense of Marriage Act, make it national policy to protect traditional marriage.

That's about all that's left. Each option takes into account the opinions of the majority, not the personal views of a few judges. I'm personally opposed to same-sex marriage, but if a large majority of Americans supported it, I'd be less opposed to making it a government policy at the very least.

However, since it's obvious that Americans don't support same-sex marriage, I see no reason to institute it under the banner of "equal rights." That's not the way we do things in this country. At least it shouldn't be.

Finally, here's an actual real-world case against same-sex marriage (hat tip: Ripe Bananas):

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia

If you read that article, you'll see what happens when you take away the special, exclusive qualities of marriage. People will decide that they don't need it anymore, and families will suffer.

I guess we'll have to redefine "family."

Posted by CD on February 4, 2004 05:45 PM
Category: