Why Are Gay Marriage Proponents Complaining?

Gay Marriage Proponents have been having all kinds of protest marches in cities such as Long Beach and Salt Lake City, Utah (where they are attacking the Mormon Church for exercising it’s previously Constitutional right to express free speech).  And there’s video of a disturbing scene of an elderly woman carrying a cross being attacked in Palm Springs.  But what is the basis for all of the pro-gay marriage anger?  What is their grounds for demanding gay marriage?

Up until very recently, there has never been such thing legally, culturally, socially or linguistically as a marriage that has NOT between a man and a woman.  Why should there be such a thing now?

Just what is marriage, exactly?  Marriage was defined according to the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1973 case, Jones v. Hallahan, as follows: “Marriage was a custom long before the state commenced to issue licenses for that purpose. In all cases, marriage has always been considered as the union of a man and a woman, and we have been presented with no authority to the contrary.”  Black’s Law Dictionary says that “Marriage is defined as the civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life for the discharge to each other and the community of duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.”  Webster put it this way: “Marriage is a state of being married or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband and wife. Also the mutual relation of husband and wife abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social, legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.”

Why then do gay rights proponents believe that they should have some fundamental right to gay marriage?  The people clearly spoke.  They spoke in California.  They spoke in Florida, they spoke in Arizona.  In fact, everywhere the people HAVE been able to speak, they have so far rejected gay marriage.

If gay marriage proponents believe that rights derive from society, then they have absolutely no right to complain.  Society has spoken, and society says there is no right to gay marriage.

This is one of the big problems with societal relativism: there is no room for the moral reformer, the person who confronts society and demands change.  If society determines morality, how do you challenge society?  [Note: this is NOT a problem for the religious reformer, who believes that God is the source of moral standards, and that societies should conform to God’s righteous moral standards.  Think about the Declaration of Independence: our founding fathers grounded their rights as coming from God, and argued that since the King of England had deprived the colonies of their God-given rights, they themselves had the right to separate from the King].

Do gay marriage proponents believe that gay marriage somehow transcends the moral standards or the laws of a society?  If so, what is the transcendent source by which society should be persuaded or even forcibly compelled to conform?

Are they going to base this right on God, as our founding fathers did?  Our Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights: that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The founding fathers specifically rejected the postmodern relativism which have come to shape so many of our modern opinions and laws by categorically stating themselves in Aristotelian objective categories.  Their worldview was unalterably shaped by the Judeo-Christian worldview, and by a commitment to the moral vision of that worldview.  In fact, Christian morality was deemed to be an essential aspect of our national survival.  As founding father and our second President John Adams put it, “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion.  Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

And so here again, gay marriage proponents have a problem.  Every monotheistic religion specifically condemns homosexuality (check your Bible: Genesis 19; Leviticus 18:21-23; , 20:13;  Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 7: or check your Koran).  There are liberal contextualizers who fundamentally oppose the historic and biblical and/or quaranic teachings of the great monotheistic traditions even as they claim to follow them.  But it simply doesn’t work that way.

Is there some transcendent source other than God that stands above society and which holds society accountable?  What is it?  And on what basis would such a source compel society to provide homosexual marriage?

Someone might say that evolution would be such a source.  But I don’t see how; evolution is descriptive, telling us what is.  It can’t even theoretically be prescriptive, and tell us what ought to occur.  Besides, given the fact that evolution is fundamentally defined in terms of survival of the fittest, with the fittest defined as those who leave the most offspring, how could one possibly justify encouraging homosexuality in evolutionary terms?  To provide a couple of historic counterexamples, the Nazis and the Soviets dealt harshly with homosexuals because they violated evolutionary standards of fitness.

Does morality derive from the courts?  Does a judge, or a majority of some group of judges, have the transcendent power over a society to “legislate morality from the bench”?  This is a stretch of such massive proportions that it should make any thinking persons’ head spin: when did human judges become gods, that they can transcendentally rule over lesser mortals and impose their morality upon us?  Where in our Constitution or our Bill of Rights did “the consent of the governed” vanish if a judge was involved?

We should quote the founding father most beloved by liberals to examine his views of the constitutional limits of judges to influence American society or its laws.  Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

To the extent that our courts have imposed themselves upon determining our morality, they have only become the very sort of despotic black robed masters our forefathers warned us against.

The Supreme Court has usurped power not delegated to it.

And let me ask a theoretical question to raise another point about relying on judges to make laws in the guise of interpreting the Constitution.  Suppose – for the sheer sake of argument – that President Barack Obama was a secret Muslim (as some rumor mills have actually suggested), and that his Supreme Court picks committed themselves to sharia law which demands the execution of homosexuals?  Or what if some right wing element gained control of the Supreme Court, and began imposing their will on the Constitution the way liberal activist judges have done?  Would homosexuals and liberals bow the knee to such laws from such authorities?

Does this not merely become another form of the claim that “might makes right”?

Gay marriage advocates seek the courts to impose their will on the people in the name of a “civil right.”  The problem with rights is that they presuppose a duty upon every else.  Should I have the duty imposed upon me to accept gay marriage as equal to traditional marriage?  Should I have the duty imposed upon me to cast aside my sacred Scriptures, and 4,000 years of my religious tradition, and over 1,000 years of my culture’s tradition, and over 200 years of my own country’s tradition, and instead bow my knee to the will of four judges as the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong?

I would argue that over 60% of Californians have already spoken on gay marriage: they don’t want it.  The proponents of gay marriage got the courts to step in and declare by fiat their view of marriage.  Now the people of California have spoken again, and yet again the proponents of gay marriage seek to have the courts step in.

Is there not a point where a willful determination to ignore the clearly stated will of the people and get an oligarchy of judges to impose their will upon the people where we have ventured into fascism?

Gay rights activists have long said that the “religious right” has been attempting to “impose their morality” on them.  But given the fact that twice in our recent state (of California) history, the people have spoken – only to have homosexual activists file yet another law suit to oppose the will of the people – it seems crystal clear that it is rather the gay rights activists who seek to impose their morality on the rest of us, and by the most illegitimate means available.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: