When your humble blogger takes simple Political Spectrum tests, he lands somewhere close to Libertarian and Conservative. Maybe it’s my Conservative Religious roots that plant me firmly in the anti-Gay Marriage camp. I find it hard to read the Bible literally, be a Christian, and not come down on the side that Homosexuality is indeed wrong. Trust me; I’m conflicted. However, we live in the world we live in, and there is a subsection of the human race that finds themselves physically attracted to those of their same sex.
To that end, many homosexuals want to get married. Lawsuits have been filed, polls have been taken, State Supreme Courts have weighed in, and States have voted. However, the Libertarian in me and many others asks ‘why should government be involved in marriage; we are all about freedom’.
Hopefully, this bit of discussion will assuage the conflict between my Libertarian and Conservative alter egos.
It seems to me a true function of the American government is to protect citizens from many and varying assaults. The government is tasked with protecting our borders, protecting our technologies through patents, protecting our ability to engage in interstate commerce. To engage in such protection, words (with definitions) are strung into sentences, paragraphs, contracts, and laws. If the definition of a crucial word in one of the contracts or laws is suddenly changed, the validity and meaning of the contract or law is void.
If I sign a contract to provide housing to a group of people, but the government allows the definition of the word ‘housing’ to change to ‘a stool under a cedar tree’, then the government has not protected the people for whom the contract was signed.
Same for the unborn – the government has allowed the definition of ‘human life’ to be changed such that an unconscious human life inside (and sometimes outside) the womb can be killed.
Now, homosexuals want to have the government remove this protection from the word ‘marriage’. The claim is that the relationship between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple are the same. However, the definition of marry is/has been/was…
If you look up Matrimony…
There you have it. The definition of ‘marry’ and ‘matrimony’ from the 1892 Edition of Noah Webster’s “Dictionary of the English Language” as found here.
So, to allow for homosexuals to marry, the Government must change the definition of Marrying / Marriage / Matrimony.
The question is, do we have a government that stands up for the contracts and laws under which the citizens have labored? Or, do we have a government that will change such definitions to suit the will of a vocal minority of the governed?
And, if the government can change such a definition, what other definitions will the government change?
But to equate Homosexual marriage and Heterosexual marriage would have to mean that the relationship is greatly similar. And, I continue to note the fact that only the Heterosexual relationship allows for natural procreation and the successful continuation of the species. That IS the major impetus for advent of marriage. It is a special condition of the committed relationship of Heterosexual Marriage that elevates the relationship (and the term) above what can be found in Homosexual relationships.
Removing the continuation of the species from the relationship of marriage is akin to removing the roof and walls from a house and still calling it a house.
If you put a Married Couple on one island; two ‘married’ men on another island; two ‘married’ women on another island… …only the island with the Married Couple has any chance of procreating and surviving.
That makes the relationship different! …and special.
(Certainly, heterosexual couples can procreate outside of the institution of matrimony. But, we are talking about government recognition of marriage and the definition of words here.)