Same Sex Marriage - Not in California
Posted: Tuesday, May 26, 2009
by Mark Parsec
Wordcasters
The California Supreme Court's ruling of May 26, 2009, upholding Proposition 8 and a ban on same sex marriage is a victory for common sense and justice. In the most liberal and "progressive" state in the Union it is refreshing to see the Court's ability to finally draw a line in the sand in a controversy that has been erroneously flaunted as an "equal rights" issue.
To justify their demand to be recognized in a same sex marriage proponents claim that it is not fair that men and women can get married and they can't. They also say that it is not their "fault" that they are homosexual and subsequently they should not be deprived the opportunity to experience a full and satisfying life like everyone else.
There are several problems with the suppositions of the same sex marriage proponents. However, for this article I would like to address is the concept of marriage as an institution of love. For, although love is indeed a vital component of marriage, it is not the primary reason for marriage. Big difference! That thing called love can be defined in so many ways by the couples that claim to possess it that it would be near impossible to establish an all inclusive standard of exactly what love is. The defining element of love certainly cannot be legislated. However, marriage can be.
Historically marriage was an institution that was created to recognize the union of a male and a female for the purposes of procreation. The bond of marriage provided a contract entitling those who entered into such an arrangement with certain privileges and obligations. One of those privileges was the right to have sex with your mate. One of the obligations was to provide for the children which resulted from sexual relationships. The catalyst of marriage was the unified effort to protect and continue the genetic product of those who entered into this contract.
Now, this last part about protecting the genetic product seems to have been missed in the current debate. The institution of marriage was created to protect the exchange of genetic information between a man and a woman… the children…. and the rights as well as the obligations that parents and their children had for one another, such as inheritance or taking care of the elderly parent.
Now, I hate to dash anybody's hopes, but no matter how many times a man has sex with a man or a woman has sex with a woman… their behavior just simply will not result in the exchange of genetic information and the production of a child. There is no tangible personal investment of self, in other words no genetic sacrifice or offering.
To complain that a person has somehow been cheated because other people (male and female) can have sexual relationships and create children can enter into an agreement "marriage" and couples of the same sex cannot… is simply absurd. And although people have entered into marriages and not produced children, and although people have entered into marriage without any intent to produce children, and although people have married without any idea why they were getting married, the standard for marriage was the union of a man and a woman to "create" a family. Not adopt a family, although this is a fine alternative for a man and a woman who have been unable to produce children. But… for a same sex marriage couple to claim that one is a husband and the other is a wife… is a redefinition of the facts that defies every ounce of logic.
If individuals want to have sex with other individuals of the same gender… oh well. That certainly is their choice. However, to demand "equal rights" under flimsy suppositions and inconsistent logic without regard to the intent and tradition of established institutions is a selfish and self-serving agenda.
By comparison the same sex marriage proponents would like the public to believe that they are engaged in a struggle comparable with the efforts which set African slaves free and allowed them the right to become citizens and vote. The problem with this comparison is that one's racial composition, whether black, yellow or red, has nothing to do with behavior. Whereas same sex marriage is exclusively about behavior. Same sex marriage proponents would argue that they were born with a natural inclination for homosexual behavior. Quite simply this is, in the majority of cases, hogwash. The majority of sexual behavior is learned behavior.
Case in point; consider the individual who engages in sexual relationships with animals. The individual can even assert that they love their dog, horse, pig, or whatever… But, the problem is, very few people would accept that this individual was born with an inclination to have sex with animals. And no matter how much they may claim to love their animal, or how much their animal loves them… getting married to the same is just beyond social acceptability. Now, they can claim that they are being denied their "equal rights" to love and happiness, but for the life of me I have never found any guarantee of love or happiness in the Constitution of the United States.
Those who respect the time honored tradition of marriage between a man and a woman must stay ever vigilant for those who would destroy this institution. For although the recent Court ruling in California may seem like a victory for the moment, I guarantee that the same sex marriage proponents are not going to give up. And what I fear is that should that day come when marriage is no longer an institution between a man and a woman… what will come next?
This Article has been viewed 284 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.