Krauthammer smacks the crap out of this one.
Let me offer this.
First, I've been to two gay marriage ceremonies. I don't have a problem with gay marriage one way or another. In fact, as a libertarian, I still fail to see what's the value add of having the state sanction any marriage. When I married Mrs. Gekko, my marital contract was between her, me and our creator. What the hell did the county do to justify the $43 bucks they charged us to record our marriage license; outside of giving our names to droves of telemarketers?
Second, does anyone doubt that eventually we'll have gay marriage in this country through the regular legislative process. New Hampshire and Vermont have it and I believe all 50 states will have have some sort of civil union provisions without the interference of the courts.
Third, state's have regulated marriage since the first colony was formed in this country. They've regulated issues such as age of the partners, bigamy and polygamy, who can preside over the ceremony, waiting periods, etc. At one time, in the state of Ohio, you needed a blood test to get a marriage license. Each state also has rules on the dissolution of marriages. Until DOMA, the feds never had any standing in regulating marriages. DOMA did nothing but keep the process at the state level.
Third, some judge in California decides that it is no longer the function of the state to regulate marriage but his opinion and his alone. Is this is the height of arrogance or what? He based his opinion on the fact that other's opinions are "bigoted". Somehow if I were to tell him that I think it should be legal to have my five year old daughter married in a pre-arranged marriage, he'd probably think his opposition wasn't bigoted.
This is the point I make incessantly to the pro gay marriage crowd. If you are allowed to marry how do you tell a 51 year old school teacher that he's not allowed to marry his 14 year old student? What makes the difference? Like most issues, no liberals can make a coherent argument for their position.
How do you tell a devoutly religious Muslim or Morman they can't have more than one spouse?
What about cousins? or siblings?
Remember.... the answer you give may resemble the very bigotry you accuse others who want to deny your ability to marry.
The conventional wisdom is that homosexuals are the only people who have their relationships regulated. In fact, we have all sorts of marital regulations regarding all sorts of relationships.
Now we have a set up where we have the robes deciding what we would have ultimately come to as a society so the process makes the whole issue illegitimate.
As Krauthammer notes in the video above, it mirrors the whole abortion issue and you can see how that's worked out.
Hopefully, the robes on the Supreme Court, the same people who brought us "separate but equal", will have gained some wisdom from their previous rulings.
But I doubt it.
1 comment:
This while issue is designed to sImply to stir things up. 99% of people that oppose gay marriage would oppose new laws in the other direction (ie restrict existing laws). The vast majority of Americans openly accept and respect gays. The bible thumper that hates gays is a myth, created by the media to have a villain.
What people protest is the activism. The average Joe hates the way the government and lawyers weasel their way into established social fabric. We no more protest accepting gay marriage than we would protest a new law requiring us to face north and salute every first of the month at midnight. Neither law requires any significant additional effort, but they both create a certain deference and acceptance of government control that is, well, unamerican.
And I think it is the religion of activism that wants this to succeed. Not for gay rights, but to legitimize activism for activism's sake. That's why the left is pushing so hard and why the people are pushing back.
Post a Comment