Adventures in misunderstanding: California Gay ‘Marriage’
I missed a call from a telemarketing computer today; the number was identified as belonging to a group called “Choice America”. Others on the internet identified this same call as asking for permission to place a pro-gay marriage sign in my yard.
Surprisingly, I found myself sad that I had missed the call… and the chance to tie up a line that will be used to try and contact others. I would like to talk to a live person, in support of the Homosexual movement that is evidenced so vehemently in California right now, driving for ‘gay marriage’. I have a few questions to ask them.
First, Why the term “Marriage”? Second, Why is the Government required to mandate this change? And finally, What does the Homosexual movement really want?
I have asked these questions of homosexuals I have met, and I have been given two different reactions. Either they rant and rave about civil rights, shouting me down as an intolerant and homophobic hypocrite Christian, or they mutter one thing or another ending with ‘maybe you should ask someone involved in that movement’.
So I guess this is my way of stating what I feel, because I don’t think I would get a straight answer from anyone involved in the movement, because I think they are so emotionally invested that they probably can’t remember why they are supporting it. So… here are my thoughts on the matter. I did try to listen to the shouting of those who did talk to me, but I disagree with that as the reason, because it has been rejected by the homosexual movement at large. Those thoughts do factor into my response, though they may not be apparent.
First, Why the term “Marriage”?
“Marriage” existed before the government did. In fact, it is arguable that the current idea of ‘marriage’ predates any written records. In none of the written records of mankind, does the term ‘marriage’ refer to same sex unions, before the modern homosexual movement. “Marriage” is a religious term which is recognized by the Government as a civil union and contract between two individuals of the opposite sex. The United States federal government has, to this point, avoided the homosexual marriage movement issue, but there have been several states which have taken up the challenge and have, in a nod to the federal Equal Rights Amendment, have granted civil union contracts that grant the same civil rights as married heterosexual couples. California is one of those states, but apparently, the same legal standing as granted by the government, is not enough.
Second, Why is the Government required to mandate this change?
I think this is simple. From what I can tell, the first question lends the answer to this one. The term ‘marriage’ is required because, as the California State Supreme Court said, it carries the positive connotation in society. In other words, people look down on civil unions because they have the stigma of being not endorsed by any religion. The U.S. society is based on religion, and therefore the moral structure and laws are formulated around the same ideals. But, the United States drew line in the dirt with the Constitution, prohibiting the government from endorsing or legislating against any particular religion. This line has been ‘fudged’ several times. One in particular is centered on marriage. Polygamy has been specifically decried as illegal and not recognized as ‘marriage’ by the government because it strays from the standard definition of marriage. So… to answer the question, the Government is required to mandate this, because general society will not grant positive social standing.
I fundamentally disagree with a Governmental mandate and redefinition because I find that going way beyond the tenets of, and a possible violation of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Government should never guarantee the social standing of any social group or ideal. I do not know how the California Supreme Court decided that equal rights equated to equal social perception. I also don’t know how they dare concluded that just because they ‘said so’, that greater social acceptance would follow. We already have problems with the government telling us how much we have to pay in taxes, we completely reject the idea that the government can tell us where we can and can’t go, let’s see how the greater social America responds when the Government tells us how we can and cannot think.
So, finally, What does the homosexual movement really want?
I have really pondered this one, and I am not sure that the homosexual movement knows what it wants. As I postulated earlier, the homosexual movement could be looking for social acceptance through Government edict. I don’t believe that social acceptance can be gained through such a process. I give the intellectual prowess of the movement more credence than to think that this would grant them the acceptance that they desire, though I can believe that they see this as a step on that path.
Yet, I can’t help but think that the movement is motivated by a deeper need, deeper than physical or social desires. I believe that it is motivated by the hollow emptiness that one finds inside when they know they are doing something that goes against their own morals. I believe this is about religion. By insisting on a religious term, is it any wonder that the larger American populace is responding as it is? It is a strange idea that a Governmental edict could change God’s mind on what is acceptable, especially since most religions believe that deity is unchanging and perfect in its current state. The majority of religious America has already rejected the homosexual movement, and this move to use the religious term could be a vindictive strike from the homosexual movement against those who have ‘thrown them out’, and if it is, it will only escalate the confrontation. If this is simply an effort by the homosexual community to find ‘affirmation’ in the religious sector, or the social sector, or not, I think it is time for them to really evaluate what they want, because I can only see this move of force backfiring. If this is not about forcing religious or social acceptance, then why then, the religious term ‘marriage’, especially when civil and legal acceptance has already been achieved?
The final option is that this goal of gay ‘marriage’ is simply a goal set by the leadership of the homosexual movement, which could explain why I have had such a hard time getting a clear answer. Could this simply be a drive toward a goal because they can? Or is ‘acceptance’ truly what they want? If it is, it will take a complete realignment of American morals, which, (even if possible), is not something to be taken lightly. In the reforming of American (Government mandated) morals, what else will we be brought to ‘accept’ or decry? This is something that the Government should not embark in, as I believe it to be unconstitutional. How can dictated moral structures and ‘accepted conduct’ not be repression of, and favoritism for certain ‘religions’? This push is a form of minority tyranny. No other way around it. Where one can argue that resistance to this movement is a form of majority tyranny, the majority is not denying any civil rights, or dictating public perception. So, I ask, where is the tyranny?