Marriage has shown itself to be a core ideal for society's strength and longevity. Society (read: government) therefore has a keen interest in ensuring marriage is done in a manner that promotes a strong and safe society; normally built upon traditions that work.
Gary Ron Scott wrote: > > Gary: > > Some of us regard marriage as a religious blessing, a religious > covenant. Some us, therefore, think the government has no > business getting itself involved in a religious matter -- like > determining what constitutes a "marriage." > > The government ought to stick to defining what kinds of "unions" > and "partnerships" it allow (I assume there are many worthwhile > variations on themes, ones that ought to be defined as permitted > by law). Had it done that -- had it taken a one-size fits all > approach and done it actively, rather than reactively, one could > argue that the pressure we've witness over the past few months > would not have been necessary. Instead, the government, in > essence, refused to confront the matter until forced. > > Had it actively addressed the matter years ago, we may have > gotten legislation on the books that would be satisfying to most, > if not all. Such legislation would have resolved the concerns of > the Massachusetts couples that sued the state, a lawsuit which > reached the Commonwealth's Supreme Judicial Court. > > Two final thoughts: I would imagine it's not lost on you that the > proposed Constitutional Amendment defines marriage as a union > between one man and one woman. I trust it's also not lost on you > that, should the amendment pass, it will, in essence, confirm > the illegality of the marriages of several of my ancestors. It > will render people like me descendants of illegitimate > relationships, the offspring of bastard children. Where will the > Church be should, at some point down the road, the Lord order > that polygamy be reinstituted? I realize this is unlikely...but > there is a darned important principle in play here, one that too > many of us are ignoring. > > RBS > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:08 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong > > > > > >Here is an awesome article by Thomas Sowell on why Gay > >marriage movement > >is wrong. > >Gary > > > >http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040309.shtml > > > >'Gay marriage' confusions > >Thomas Sowell (archive) > > > >March 9, 2004 > > > >Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as > >the "gay marriage" > >issue. > > > >There is, for example, the argument that the government > >has no business > >getting involved with marriage in the first place. That > >is a personal > >relation, the argument goes. > > > >Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a > >legal relation. To > >say that government should not get involved in legal > >relations is to say > >that government has no business governing. > > > >Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they > >said that what > >happens between "consenting adults" in private is none of the > >government's business. But now gay activists are taking > >the opposite > >view, that it is government's business -- and that > >government has an > >obligation to give its approval. > > > >Then there are the strained analogies with the civil > >rights struggles of > >the 1960s. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King challenged > >the racial laws > >of their time. So, the argument goes, what is wrong > >with Massachusetts > >judges and the mayor of San Francisco challenging laws > >that they > >consider unjust today? > > > >First of all, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were > >private citizens > >and they did not put themselves above the law. On the > >contrary, they > >submitted to arrest in order to gain the public support > >needed to change > >the laws. > > > >As private citizens, neither Mrs. Parks nor Dr. King > >wielded the power > >of government. Their situation was very different from > >that of public > >officials who use the power delegated to them through > >the framework of > >law to betray that framework itself, which they swore > >to uphold as a > >condition of receiving their power. > > > >The real analogy would be to Governor George Wallace, > >who defied the law > >by trying to prevent black students from being enrolled in the > >University of Alabama under a court order. > > > >After Wallace was no longer governor, he was within his > >rights to argue > >for racial segregation, just as civil rights leaders > >argued against it. > >But, using the powers of his office as governor to defy > >the law was a > >violation of his oath. > > > >If judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the > >mayor of San > >Francisco want to resign their jobs and start > >advocating gay marriage, > >they have every right to do so. But that is wholly > >different from using > >the authority delegated to them under the law to > >subvert the law. > > > >Gay rights activists argue that activist judges have > >overturned unjust > >laws in the past and that society is better off for it. > >The argument > >that some good has come from some unlawful acts in the > >past is hardly a > >basis for accepting unlawful acts in general. > > > >If you only want to accept particular unlawful acts > >that you agree with, > >then of course others will have other unlawful acts > >that they agree > >with. Considering how many different groups have how > >many different sets > >of values, that road leads to anarchy. > > > >Have we not seen enough anarchy in Haiti, Rwanda and > >other places to > >know not to go there? > > > >The last refuge of the gay marriage advocates is that > >this is an issue > >of equal rights. But marriage is not an individual > >right. Otherwise, why > >limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three > >or four or five? > >Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united > >with others of > >various ages, sexes and species? > > > >Marriage is a social contract because the issues > >involved go beyond the > >particular individuals. Unions of a man and a woman > >produce the future > >generations on whom the fate of the whole society > >depends. Society has > >something to say about that. > > > >Even at the individual level, men and women have different > >circumstances, if only from the fact that women have > >babies and men do > >not. These and other asymmetries in the positions of > >women and men > >justify long-term legal arrangements to enable society > >to keep this > >asymmetrical relationship viable -- for society's sake. > > > >Neither of these considerations applies to unions where > >the people are > >of the same sex. > > > >Centuries of experience in trying to cope with the > >asymmetries of > >marriage have built up a large body of laws and > >practices geared to that > >particular legal relationship. To then transfer all of > >that to another > >relationship that was not contemplated when these laws > >were passed is to > >make rhetoric more important than reality. > > > >©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc. > > > >Gerald (Gary) Smith > >geraldsmith@ juno.com > >http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom > > > >//////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > >////////////////////// > >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > >//////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > >///////////////////// > -- > > Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// --^---------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^----------------------------------------------------------------
