The state of California is getting ready to vote on this change to their state constitution:
"Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"
First a suit was filed to prevent this amendment from coming to the ballot. It failed. Now the Attorney General has changed the wording of this amendment to read:
"Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments."
It seems to me that the AG is just setting the state up so that the amendment can be challenged in court and thrown out, but I notice that he doesn't include the fiscal impact of that. He is playing with the people of California and wasting their money to boot. He obviously believes their morals are for sale to the highest bidder. How much more insulting does he have to be before the people of the state wake up and oust him?
Aside from the AG's shenanigans though, I have a problem with the whole idea of indicating that a marriage could occur between two people who are anything but a man and a woman.
Now, I know that some people will find this confusing, but please bear with me. I think that same sex couples cannot be married, because they cannot, by definition, perform the contract of marriage. One cannot make a legal contract to perform an action which one is physically unable to perform and neither can one make a contract not to perform that which one is unable to perform. As I understand it, it must be possible for the terms of a contract to be performed for the contract to be valid. Therefore, same sex couples cannot be married because marriage is a contract which in essence states that both partners will only perform those acts necessary for the creation of children with the other partner in the marriage. That any children they produce will be the children of themselves and the other party to the contract. It does not require the production of children, nor does it prohibit adoption. It simply states that all children produced within the marriage will be the children of the parties to the contract. Since same sex couples cannot produce children with their partner, they do not need, nor can they legally make, a contract that says they will only do so with said partner.
(Before Mr. Morris says so, yes I believe that a marriage is much more than that on a spiritual, mental, emotional and physical level-but those things are hard to define and show evidence of in a courtroom, so for the sake of this post, I restrict myself.)
I think it is also questionable to encourage people to enter into agreements which prevent them from reproducing as a contract of marriage would for same sex couples.
While I recognize that there are moral benefits to being able to say one is married, those benefits are available to anyone who wants to get married. I would love to be able to say I'm a brain surgeon, but it wouldn't be the truth. If I wanted to, I could certainly do that which is necessary to earn that title. Changing the definition of brain surgeon so that it includes me would not give me the skills and knowledge of a brain surgeon. It would simply make it more difficult for people to know who is qualified to operate on brains. I can whine all I want about how brain surgeons have people's respect and that makes their lives better and why shouldn't I be able to do that too?, but that isn't a good enough reason to change the definition. And it's not a good enough reason to change the definition of marriage either.
Some may argue that there are legislative benefits to being married. Yes there are. Married people went through the legislative process to get them. If same sex couples want those benefits, they too are free to avail themselves of the legislative process.
It is a dangerous practice to legislate by redefinition. While I applaud the people of those states who have made the effort to legally define marriage in their states, I am appalled by the very idea that it should be necessary. Do we need to put the dictionary into legislation as well so that this sort of thing can be avoided in the future? Aren't we, as a people, better than that?
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
~Gen 2:24
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
(Before Mr. Morris says so, yes I believe that a marriage is much more than that on a spiritual, mental, emotional and physical level-but those things are hard to define and show evidence of in a courtroom, so for the sake of this post, I restrict myself.)
LOL! Now what makes you think I would say something like that? ;-)
Like we've discussed before, it's quite literally impossible, from my view, for same sex "couples" to adhere to the terms of the marriage contract in any traditional sense of the word. This is the reason that the advocates (which include the courts) of same sex "marriage" feel compelled to destroy traditional concepts of marriage in the process. They have no choice but to attempt to make the marriage institution compatible with homosexuality. Which means essentially that they must destroy traditional concepts of marriage ... or admit that the two (marriage and homosexuality) are forever completely and utterly incompatible.
We, on the other hand, have no choice but to put an end to this destructive practice of lowering our standards to accomodate a group of people who live a lifestyle which is abjectly deviant and self-destructive. It amazes me that people do not realize the self-destroying implications of accomodating such a perverse way of living. Homosexuality is bad enough in and of itself (and this is self-evident to anyone with half a brain), but to sanction it, in word or deed, is perhaps the even greater sin.
Nice post!
-Terry
Thanks Terry.
And for those who would argue that heterosexual couples who turn out to be sterile or who have some reason to suspect that they are sterile still can make the contract of marriage so where is my position left then? I say that there is always the possibility that a miraculous/highly unlikely pregnancy is a possibility between such people.
There is the possibility for a couple who unexpectedly discovers they cannot produce children between them to alter that contract, but that is based on the fact that there is a possibility of producing a child between heterosexual couples. It is never a possibility between same sex couples. That's what makes it impossible to call the union that a same sex couple may have "marriage" without being destructive to the rule of law.
Post a Comment