posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mmoa_writes at 06:48am on 02/04/2004
mmoa_writes at 06:48am on 02/04/2004Ten Reasons To Defend Marriage
From: JayDWhite
Many things can be said about the institution of marriage, some good, some not so good, and some down right bad. One thing is certain, marriage has been under assault. Not by homosexuals, but by the very heterosexuals that have enjoyed that special right. The “Traditional” Marriage, if it ever existed has long since died. From its history, Traditional Marriage was a from of bondage more severe than slavery, at least for the women. The change from “Traditional” to “Contemporary” has been gradual but necessary. No longer is there a “ruler” of the family, vested in the man of the marriage, but now a partnership. That partnership is, like a business, one based on equality. No longer is it a dictatorship. This change, above all else, has been long overdue. There are many others but the issue confronting us is: Does marriage need to be defended? Or is defense needed but currently mistargeted?
Perhaps the best way to answer theses question is to examine Bowden’s Ten reasons, { http://www.americandaily.com/item/1948 }, and then read the remainder of this essay.
1. Defend Traditional Marriage. Has the U.S. Supreme Courts (SCOUS) inclusion of adult consensual sexual acts under that privacy umbrella destroyed the state’s ability to govern sexual behavior? Has the state ever had this right? Sure they have the right to protect people from bodily harm but does that extent to proscribing sexual activity?
The Right of Privacy, although not explicit in the Constitution, is a principle under which many of our laws, and attitudes, dealing with privacy are formed. To contend that there is no such right because “there is no explicit wording” flies in the face of Amendment IX “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Right of Privacy is derived, in part, from Amendment IV “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This clarifies that Right of Privacy does exist in the Constitution.
There is complaint that the U.S. Supreme Court has usurped the State Right to regulate Private Adult Consensual Sexual Behavior. But that is a right that the state never rightfully had. For heterosexuals it has long been that the state had no right to “peek into their bedrooms”, as the people had a right to privacy. Now SCOUS has, rightfully, declared that the state has no more right to peer into the bedrooms of homosexuals. Far from destroying adult consensual sexual laws the SCOUS has reaffirmed, and strengthened, the Right of Privacy for all.
To contend that reaffirming the Right of Privacy renders the legal basis of Marriage null and void is ludicrous. To contend, indirectly, that the only basis for marriage is “sex” is the height of laughabileity! Marriage is much more than the act of sex, and always has been. Marriage is an institution, recognized at all level of governance, that grants protections to, initially, the partners and, eventually, to the children. These include, but are not limited to: property rights, inheritance rights, medical decision making rights, and much, much, more.
By declaring that sodomy is outside the preview of the state, the SCOUS has strengthened the rights held by the People.
2. Defend Free Speech. If Homosexual Marriage was legal would that impact Free Speech? Would it render certain statement, or phrases, punishable? It is a resounding “NO!” to both! What it will do is removed the arrogance that some bring to the discussion of sexual morality. It will equalize the legal standing of both Pro-homosexual, and Anti-homosexual constituents. Like the Right to Privacy, the Right to Free Speech would be strengthened by this act.
3. Defend American Civilization. What can be said about this “argument”? In actuality very little. Not because anything that has been presented has any validity, but just the reverse. Our civilization is not based on marriage, but on rights that ensure the proper interaction between diverse people. To plead otherwise is to create a phantom, a wisp of smoke, that is insubstantial and meaningless.
4. Defend American Values. Before addressing this issue a special note must be presented. In Bowden’s article he contended that marriage is two thousand years old, yet in this subheading he identifies that marriage only dates to 1607. An interesting disparity!
Like argument 3 this too is a phantom. It contends that the Same-Sex Marriages, in and of itself, will destroy Judeo-Christian values, implying that “American Values” are only Judeo-Christian. This argument is nothing but an attempt to incite hatred of non-conservative Christians and non-Christians, who are blamed for the “ills of man”. And like argument 3 this one is insubstantial and meaningless.
5. Defend the Constitution. Yes! Defend the Constitution! Show that there is neither a right to sodomy or privacy in it, and then reread the comments above! Lumping sexual crime, crime where individuals are harmed, into sexual behavior is a strawman! Ignoring the issue of “Adult Consensual Behavior” and including all sexual acts are the pinnacle of hilarity!
But take note, to argue against Adult Consensual Sexual Behavior by invoking the State’s Right of Regulating “Marriage” ends in a call to make “Marriage” a Federal statue! Thus rendering any argument for State’s Rights null and void!
6. Restore Moral Authority. In what institution? Is it the Church, or the Government that dictates governing laws? With the exception of protecting individuals from bodily harm the government of the US is, and always has been, secular. Any secular government has no business being a “Moral Authority”. A call to make homosexuality illegal, and up to this point it hasn’t been, is to enforce a class system on a country that prides itself on the concept that “All are created equal”.
7. Stop Judicial Tyranny. A big issue and one that will not stand or fall with the legalization of same-sex marriages.
Mr. Bowden’s assertion about the Judiciary, however, must be addressed. The argument is based on a profound misconception, the supposed “weakness” of the Judiciary. The government of the US was constructed on a Checks and Balances System of Three EQUAL branches of governance. Each branch is to check the other two and ensure that no one branch takes control, or oversteps its authority.
The Judiciary is tasked to clarify law. When there is a dispute as to what the meaning of any law is, the Judiciary is required to make the judgment. This it has done, and should continue to do. US is not a pure democracy and was never intended to be. A rule of the majority is tempered by the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution. Without this constraining law we would have “mob rule”, where a simple majority can dictate how a minority will be permitted to live their lives. This is not proper and never will be as long as our Three Branch Government system stands.
8. Protect Your Children. Far from an argument against Same-Sex Marriages this phantom creates hysteria. All PRIVATE organizations will retain their rights. All PEOPLE will retain their rights. And to paint a segment of society as “predators” is not presenting facts but playing to stereotypes. All in all this phantom can not bear the light of day!
9. Protect Our Troops. Absolutely! Recognize that Homosexual are now, and always have been Honored members of our Armed forces. Recognize, too, that the invocation of “predatory homosexuals” is nothing but scare tactics! The building of “images” of rampant homosexual activity is overblown, especially since Mr. Bowden claims that only one percent of the population are homosexual. Scandals? Only if one attempts to argue that such activity will be tolerated. Unlike the heterosexual variety, which is typically chalked up to “boys will be boys”, even when the “boys” are grown men, any infraction of sexual nature by a homosexual will not be. The Troops are safe, and always will be!
As far as the Uniform Code of Military Justice is concerned, the Sodomy provision should, and must be, removed. It has no more valid existence in the military environment than it does in the civilian one.
10. Prevent More Evil. Again absolutely! But not from any “reason” presented by Mr. Bowden. By presenting a litany of “ills” and claiming that they all started in the 1960s speaks not to rational thought but to playing on the false emotions of others. Invoking the unease that many have over unfamiliar issues is not an argument.
Throughout Mr. Bowden’s “Ten reasons to defend Marriage” he has attempted to invoke one false stereotype after another. Playing to emotion and not fact, he wishes to cloud the minds of the reader and manipulate them into causing more harm. A call to rational thought, based on fact, is what is necessary!
Jay
From: JayDWhite
Many things can be said about the institution of marriage, some good, some not so good, and some down right bad. One thing is certain, marriage has been under assault. Not by homosexuals, but by the very heterosexuals that have enjoyed that special right. The “Traditional” Marriage, if it ever existed has long since died. From its history, Traditional Marriage was a from of bondage more severe than slavery, at least for the women. The change from “Traditional” to “Contemporary” has been gradual but necessary. No longer is there a “ruler” of the family, vested in the man of the marriage, but now a partnership. That partnership is, like a business, one based on equality. No longer is it a dictatorship. This change, above all else, has been long overdue. There are many others but the issue confronting us is: Does marriage need to be defended? Or is defense needed but currently mistargeted?
Perhaps the best way to answer theses question is to examine Bowden’s Ten reasons, { http://www.americandaily.com/item/1948 }, and then read the remainder of this essay.
1. Defend Traditional Marriage. Has the U.S. Supreme Courts (SCOUS) inclusion of adult consensual sexual acts under that privacy umbrella destroyed the state’s ability to govern sexual behavior? Has the state ever had this right? Sure they have the right to protect people from bodily harm but does that extent to proscribing sexual activity?
The Right of Privacy, although not explicit in the Constitution, is a principle under which many of our laws, and attitudes, dealing with privacy are formed. To contend that there is no such right because “there is no explicit wording” flies in the face of Amendment IX “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Right of Privacy is derived, in part, from Amendment IV “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This clarifies that Right of Privacy does exist in the Constitution.
There is complaint that the U.S. Supreme Court has usurped the State Right to regulate Private Adult Consensual Sexual Behavior. But that is a right that the state never rightfully had. For heterosexuals it has long been that the state had no right to “peek into their bedrooms”, as the people had a right to privacy. Now SCOUS has, rightfully, declared that the state has no more right to peer into the bedrooms of homosexuals. Far from destroying adult consensual sexual laws the SCOUS has reaffirmed, and strengthened, the Right of Privacy for all.
To contend that reaffirming the Right of Privacy renders the legal basis of Marriage null and void is ludicrous. To contend, indirectly, that the only basis for marriage is “sex” is the height of laughabileity! Marriage is much more than the act of sex, and always has been. Marriage is an institution, recognized at all level of governance, that grants protections to, initially, the partners and, eventually, to the children. These include, but are not limited to: property rights, inheritance rights, medical decision making rights, and much, much, more.
By declaring that sodomy is outside the preview of the state, the SCOUS has strengthened the rights held by the People.
2. Defend Free Speech. If Homosexual Marriage was legal would that impact Free Speech? Would it render certain statement, or phrases, punishable? It is a resounding “NO!” to both! What it will do is removed the arrogance that some bring to the discussion of sexual morality. It will equalize the legal standing of both Pro-homosexual, and Anti-homosexual constituents. Like the Right to Privacy, the Right to Free Speech would be strengthened by this act.
3. Defend American Civilization. What can be said about this “argument”? In actuality very little. Not because anything that has been presented has any validity, but just the reverse. Our civilization is not based on marriage, but on rights that ensure the proper interaction between diverse people. To plead otherwise is to create a phantom, a wisp of smoke, that is insubstantial and meaningless.
4. Defend American Values. Before addressing this issue a special note must be presented. In Bowden’s article he contended that marriage is two thousand years old, yet in this subheading he identifies that marriage only dates to 1607. An interesting disparity!
Like argument 3 this too is a phantom. It contends that the Same-Sex Marriages, in and of itself, will destroy Judeo-Christian values, implying that “American Values” are only Judeo-Christian. This argument is nothing but an attempt to incite hatred of non-conservative Christians and non-Christians, who are blamed for the “ills of man”. And like argument 3 this one is insubstantial and meaningless.
5. Defend the Constitution. Yes! Defend the Constitution! Show that there is neither a right to sodomy or privacy in it, and then reread the comments above! Lumping sexual crime, crime where individuals are harmed, into sexual behavior is a strawman! Ignoring the issue of “Adult Consensual Behavior” and including all sexual acts are the pinnacle of hilarity!
But take note, to argue against Adult Consensual Sexual Behavior by invoking the State’s Right of Regulating “Marriage” ends in a call to make “Marriage” a Federal statue! Thus rendering any argument for State’s Rights null and void!
6. Restore Moral Authority. In what institution? Is it the Church, or the Government that dictates governing laws? With the exception of protecting individuals from bodily harm the government of the US is, and always has been, secular. Any secular government has no business being a “Moral Authority”. A call to make homosexuality illegal, and up to this point it hasn’t been, is to enforce a class system on a country that prides itself on the concept that “All are created equal”.
7. Stop Judicial Tyranny. A big issue and one that will not stand or fall with the legalization of same-sex marriages.
Mr. Bowden’s assertion about the Judiciary, however, must be addressed. The argument is based on a profound misconception, the supposed “weakness” of the Judiciary. The government of the US was constructed on a Checks and Balances System of Three EQUAL branches of governance. Each branch is to check the other two and ensure that no one branch takes control, or oversteps its authority.
The Judiciary is tasked to clarify law. When there is a dispute as to what the meaning of any law is, the Judiciary is required to make the judgment. This it has done, and should continue to do. US is not a pure democracy and was never intended to be. A rule of the majority is tempered by the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution. Without this constraining law we would have “mob rule”, where a simple majority can dictate how a minority will be permitted to live their lives. This is not proper and never will be as long as our Three Branch Government system stands.
8. Protect Your Children. Far from an argument against Same-Sex Marriages this phantom creates hysteria. All PRIVATE organizations will retain their rights. All PEOPLE will retain their rights. And to paint a segment of society as “predators” is not presenting facts but playing to stereotypes. All in all this phantom can not bear the light of day!
9. Protect Our Troops. Absolutely! Recognize that Homosexual are now, and always have been Honored members of our Armed forces. Recognize, too, that the invocation of “predatory homosexuals” is nothing but scare tactics! The building of “images” of rampant homosexual activity is overblown, especially since Mr. Bowden claims that only one percent of the population are homosexual. Scandals? Only if one attempts to argue that such activity will be tolerated. Unlike the heterosexual variety, which is typically chalked up to “boys will be boys”, even when the “boys” are grown men, any infraction of sexual nature by a homosexual will not be. The Troops are safe, and always will be!
As far as the Uniform Code of Military Justice is concerned, the Sodomy provision should, and must be, removed. It has no more valid existence in the military environment than it does in the civilian one.
10. Prevent More Evil. Again absolutely! But not from any “reason” presented by Mr. Bowden. By presenting a litany of “ills” and claiming that they all started in the 1960s speaks not to rational thought but to playing on the false emotions of others. Invoking the unease that many have over unfamiliar issues is not an argument.
Throughout Mr. Bowden’s “Ten reasons to defend Marriage” he has attempted to invoke one false stereotype after another. Playing to emotion and not fact, he wishes to cloud the minds of the reader and manipulate them into causing more harm. A call to rational thought, based on fact, is what is necessary!
Jay
There are 3 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
contemplative