Celebrating
that one unaccountable man has redefined more than six thousand years
of tradition from across the width and breadth of human society with one
stroke of a single pen.
Seems more than a little ridiculous to me. To say nothing of arrogant and presumptuous in the extreme.
I've seen a lot of hate and viciousness since yesterday afternoon. Most of it seems to be coming from those who were most clamoring for "equality of love". I can't understand that. Or maybe I can and I don't care to articulate why... because what would be the point?
It's not same-gender marriage. Same-gender marriage is a contradiction. It's an oxymoron. It is something so illogical that it cannot exist. There will be consequences. Legal and otherwise. Especially legal. Ramifications for both "sides" of this debate.
Personally, I'm not worried at all about yesterday. Marriage is something beyond human establishment. It's untouchable. Those people - and I'm referring to both parties involved in this - can scream that it's a mountain all they want. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a pebble.
Bear in mind that at the time I was against Amendment One. For various reasons I am still against it. There are some things which are defined by something higher than man. Whether that is God or immutable law, there are concepts which can neither be defined or redefined by legislation or activist judiciaries. I couldn't support Amendment One because I knew something of the spirit of the men who were most pushing for it, and theirs was NOT borne out of respect for that higher concept of marriage.
And ironically, neither is what happened yesterday. But where does this end? Will polygamy be next? Will corpses be given legal rights so that necrophilia is legitimized?
How far does this now go?
I'm looking at the LONG-term ramifications. And there will be consequences of this trend.
Some have asked by what right am I to dictate how two people are to love each other? Well , I haven't conspired or ever attempted to tell anyone about what they express to another person. I do have to sincerely wonder though about defining and re-defining something that is derived from law higher than man's. Let's be honest: is what happened yesterday about marriage, or is it about coercing those who do not agree with it into endorsing something that they do not believe in? There are some businesses which do not cater to same-sex marriages. Some bakeries have refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. They have been "penalized" with fines and made to sit through "sensitivity" classes. Are they to be forced to do so against their beliefs? It is already happening.
If two people want to express their love for each other, fine. Let them do it. Knock themselves out. But that doesn't mean that I or anyone else should be made to give it an official stamp of endorsement. I didn't think that Amendment One needed to do that for traditional marriage and I don't think that one judge's decision "needed" to do that for "gay" marriage either.
I cannot reiterate nearly enough that marriage is something man can't define. Our attempts to do that will only meet with disaster. Perhaps not today, but eventually.
For what it's worth: I think a case can be made that Amendment One, and it's biggest proponents, paved the way for what happened yesterday. It really was one of the worst-worded, worst-inspired amendments that I've ever seen (and I mean from a strictly legal perspective, not on whether one agreed with it or not). The ones who were demanding it cared more for strutting their own egos than they were about anything else. One cannot set out to do something with an impure motive. Doing so will in time destroy that work. And that is what happened here. It became less about defending marriage and more about looking like players at the big table of politics.
There are many who would be wise to learn from this.
Seems more than a little ridiculous to me. To say nothing of arrogant and presumptuous in the extreme.
I've seen a lot of hate and viciousness since yesterday afternoon. Most of it seems to be coming from those who were most clamoring for "equality of love". I can't understand that. Or maybe I can and I don't care to articulate why... because what would be the point?
It's not same-gender marriage. Same-gender marriage is a contradiction. It's an oxymoron. It is something so illogical that it cannot exist. There will be consequences. Legal and otherwise. Especially legal. Ramifications for both "sides" of this debate.
Personally, I'm not worried at all about yesterday. Marriage is something beyond human establishment. It's untouchable. Those people - and I'm referring to both parties involved in this - can scream that it's a mountain all they want. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a pebble.
Bear in mind that at the time I was against Amendment One. For various reasons I am still against it. There are some things which are defined by something higher than man. Whether that is God or immutable law, there are concepts which can neither be defined or redefined by legislation or activist judiciaries. I couldn't support Amendment One because I knew something of the spirit of the men who were most pushing for it, and theirs was NOT borne out of respect for that higher concept of marriage.
And ironically, neither is what happened yesterday. But where does this end? Will polygamy be next? Will corpses be given legal rights so that necrophilia is legitimized?
How far does this now go?
I'm looking at the LONG-term ramifications. And there will be consequences of this trend.
Some have asked by what right am I to dictate how two people are to love each other? Well , I haven't conspired or ever attempted to tell anyone about what they express to another person. I do have to sincerely wonder though about defining and re-defining something that is derived from law higher than man's. Let's be honest: is what happened yesterday about marriage, or is it about coercing those who do not agree with it into endorsing something that they do not believe in? There are some businesses which do not cater to same-sex marriages. Some bakeries have refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. They have been "penalized" with fines and made to sit through "sensitivity" classes. Are they to be forced to do so against their beliefs? It is already happening.
If two people want to express their love for each other, fine. Let them do it. Knock themselves out. But that doesn't mean that I or anyone else should be made to give it an official stamp of endorsement. I didn't think that Amendment One needed to do that for traditional marriage and I don't think that one judge's decision "needed" to do that for "gay" marriage either.
I cannot reiterate nearly enough that marriage is something man can't define. Our attempts to do that will only meet with disaster. Perhaps not today, but eventually.
For what it's worth: I think a case can be made that Amendment One, and it's biggest proponents, paved the way for what happened yesterday. It really was one of the worst-worded, worst-inspired amendments that I've ever seen (and I mean from a strictly legal perspective, not on whether one agreed with it or not). The ones who were demanding it cared more for strutting their own egos than they were about anything else. One cannot set out to do something with an impure motive. Doing so will in time destroy that work. And that is what happened here. It became less about defending marriage and more about looking like players at the big table of politics.
There are many who would be wise to learn from this.
1 comments:
Now that's the Chris Knight that we know and love! Flying rings all around something in your own brilliant style.
Welcome back!
Cassie
Post a Comment