The Defense of Marriage Act was struck down in part just a few short weeks ago by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Anytime SCOTUS makes a decision its historical, but this one in particular marks a shift in the official stance of the government towards various non-traditional civil unions. While I believe erroneously, many people believe America to be a country founded directly on Christian values. An overwhelming majority of the Christian communities are not in favor of anything other than Heterosexual and indivisible unions. DOMA stated that the Federal Government did not have to recognize same-sex spouses as such and also allowed states which did not recognize "alternative" unions within their borders to also not recognize unions established within the borders of a different, pro-alternative union, state. Clinton signed this bill after it cruised through Congress in '96. If there's anything he's not shaky on its heterosexuality.
The part of DOMA that was declared unconstitutional is the 3rd part which reads,
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
The argument that is was unconstitutional stemmed from the "due process" clause of the 5th amendment. In essence, the highlighted text restricted the application of American laws which provide benefits to married people. This law, as was argued, places same-sex "spouses" in a category below opp-sex spouses in reference to the Federal Government which is not constitutional. This is a sound argument.
However, the discussion should not be about how the Federal Government views these civil unions. I could care less if a guy is taking out social security as a "married man" because he "married" his car, as long as it means he also has to demonstrate in good faith the union was mutual (which is of course impossible). The benefits the Government provides to the spouse of a married person should be provided to the "other half" of an alternative union. However, that doesn't mean its a marriage.
As I've eloquently, or not so much, demonstrated in earlier posts, way way back, words and their meanings are completely subjective. This is also the case with the word marriage.Webster-Merriam holds the following definition:
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
I wonder when (2) was added. The first country to ever legalize same-sex marriage with The Netherlands in 2000, so the Earth had been around for approx. 6000 years before we got that "right".
So what is a marriage? It is a socio-economic union meant to provide the following things:
1. Procreation
2. Continuation of Lineage
3. Differentiation of the Sexes
4. Instruction and Care of the Young
5. Satisfaction of Needs for Companionship and Status derived from the concise Webster-Merriam
Does same-sex marriage satisfy these criteria?
#5 works, there's nothing saying two men or two women can't experience companionship. In the current society their status is less favorable than that of a traditional union but with time that will even out.
#4 works as well, though many traditionalists shudder at the thought, two men and/or two women can raise a child.
#3 not even close. With the progress of Liberalism and Feminism the differentiation of the sexes has become virtually taboo (not surprising the definition of marriage followed suit) and same-sex unions are part-and-parcel with the spectrum-style approach to sexuality.
#2 nope. This goes hand-in-hand with 1.
#1 is the primary reason I will always say "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" when referring to alternative unions. It cannot physically, scientifically etc, participate in marriage's first cause, procreation. Artificial insemination, surrogate carriers and adoption are NOT natural procreation through marriage. With the development of genetic science and "sex-change" therapies one day we may have a man with all, and I mean a l l, of the biological distinctions of a woman. At that point, I don't understand the problem...obviously the individual performing a wholesale switch may have some issues (understated) but as far as the marriage is concerned its a man and a man who has completely changed into a woman, making it relatively traditional.
Still haven't said why I care about DOMA though. Justice Antonin Scalia, who is usually pretty much the bomb, had a vicious dissenting opinion regarding the DOMA case. If you don't know how SCOTUS works go retake High School Government. In his dissent, he states that upholding DOMA was not about attacking the alternative marriage styles but instead about confirming what the various laws and statutes that are already on the books mean when they use the term "marriage." He suggests that SCOTUS has now made anyone in support of DOMA, or any traditional definition of the term marriage, an "enemy of the state." And he is 100% correct. This is a direct violation of those individuals' constitutional rights. The simpler, more constitutional way of solving this is for each state, municipality and board to alter the reading of their laws to include "same-sex." In doing so, you protect the meaning of marriage while allowing for everyone to enjoy the political freedom to be wrong. This is a very important freedom, something that is often overlooked in the march of Liberalism.
So that's why I care. I have a right to be wrong. Whether or not I think I'm wrong, and I don't, it would be the very definition of insanity to believe something I thought was wrong, I have a protected, God-given right, to disagree. SCOTUS took away a tiny piece of that right in the DOMA decision. I fear it won't be the last.
All-Star game was fun as usual. Not as pleased with the result but Cliff Lee gave me a few more reasons to hate him. Now if he ends up a Cardinal like SI says he might, he will slide down to "least likable athlete ever" range, with the Reggie Millers and A-Rods of the world. Kimbrel had a rough outing too, good thing his two worst outings of the year have been in exhibition play and otherwise he's as dominant as ever.
Also, as a Braves fan I hate everything Yankee. Everything except Mariano Rivera. I hated when he came into the game, cuz it meant it was over, but the man, the player, the professional, the pitcher was everything any fan could hope to experience. He is the greatest reliever ever and possibly the greater Yankee pitcher ever. So I say #HailSandman
No comments:
Post a Comment