March 19, 2004
on gay "marriage" ::: part VII of many
for a good laugh (perhaps), always hover your mouse cursor over the images in this and other posts.
william j watkins
One’s beliefs about homosexuality and marriage aside, a ban on same-sex marriage is not irrational. Nor is legislation that permits a same-sex couple to marry irrational. A reasonable legislator could conclude that homosexual marriage threatens the institution of the family, which many view as the foundation of a free society. Or, the same legislator could conclude that in the modern world the benefits conferred because of marital status (e.g., taxation, health benefits, and inheritance) are so important that the notion of a civil marriage must be altered to catch up with the times.
The beauty of democratic government with the guarantee of free speech is that we may change our minds and our laws as dictated by the marketplace of ideas. Society benefits from such a discussion and issues can be settled to the satisfaction of both sides. When courts take issues such as gay marriage away from the people and their representatives, democracy runs the risk of atrophying and seldom does the losing side retire peacefully from the field.
The recent shenanigans of the Massachusetts Supreme Court raise serious questions about where ultimate sovereignty resides in our system of government. [source]
schmitt
the sovereign is he who decides on the exception. an exception is that which cannot be subsumed; it denies general codification
there exists no norm that is applicable to chaos. for a legal order to make sense, a normal situation must exist, and he is sovereign who definitely decides whether this normal situation actually exists.
while blathering columnists like wapo's ej dionne jr wonder along with barney frank, "why is bush pushing this marriage amendment NOW?" with the same outrage as an activist who wants your church to ordain an openly gay bishop,
WHAT?!! you refuse to make a homosexual a leader in your church? what about god's unconditional love?...i don't care what the bible says, it's just a made-up story anyway. what i want to know is, why are you such a homophobic bigot?!!
anyway, as i was saying--it is not bush who's pushing an amendment right now. the nation is in chaos. nobody is clear on what the law is, or if they think they are clear on what the law is, they are feeling oppressed by the minority. i know i am. just read what dionne says. you won't believe it:
By proposing to move preemptively to change the Constitution, Bush would block state courts and legislatures from working through a tough issue in a more deliberate way.
newsflash, dionne: only can a legislature--a national legislature--work through this issue in a complete, deliberate way, and only in a national legislature will policymakers be accountable to america as a whole. otherwise, you've got the mayor of one city deciding what the law is for a nation of 300 million people who didn't vote for him. how can you be so stupid and be a columnist? but i digress; the fool continues, singing the song of frank, his hero:
That's why Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is gay, believes that in endorsing the amendment, Bush "drew the line in the wrong place." He abandoned the middle ground on gay marriage to his opponents.
Frank argues that while public sympathy for gays and lesbians has steadily increased, there are still doubts about gay marriage. That's why he says of the current battle: "I wish it hadn't come up quite so early."
barney, i'm sorry, but it's your pals who brought up the issue now, filing lawsuits in state after state. it was san francisco's mayor who came to the conclusion that the democratically enacted laws of the united states of america are discriminatory. don't blame bush for starting this culture war.
in a yet more-sneaky way, dionne suggests that if gay marriage were given enough time to blossom unchecked, it would give americans the chance to see that it works. well, that is taking a pretty big chance. if american heterosexuals stop getting married en masse and simply living together, like in scandinavia, what are you going to do then? say, "whoopsie!"? not every mistake in the world can be solved with an orange mocha frappuccino.
if gay marriage gains the approval of the majority, of course, it would be something the congress could legalize. i think americans would have been fine with that. a month ago. now it's war. you tried to sneak one by us, you slimy bastards. you liberals thought,
we almost got away with one in florida in the 2000 elections. let's keep trying. sooner or later, america's laws will be overthrown!
bush HAD to come out in support of a marriage amendment, considering the fact that the sovereignty of the american people has been stolen outright by a couple of pimply-faced mayors.
the majority of americans oppose gay marriage. they have reasonable opinions. at least for now i would like to see them validated in the face of the whiny, extra-legal claims of those who seek to change the standing laws. george w. bush won the 2000 election but the country was in chaos for several weeks while liberals made claim after extra-legal claim, seeking to get their way however they could. this pattern of legal relativism will lead us to legal nihilism and anarchy. if nothing is unrevisable! (quine), then why expend so much effort to democratically enact them?
if liberals' legal relativism is any indication of the moral relativism our society can expect if gay "marriages" are legalized, then the failed passage of a marriage amendment to the constitution will surely signal the end of american society as we know it.
Posted by travis at March 19, 2004 07:07 AM | TrackBack