Replies

There is no debate, the supermajority of the country does not want to redefine marriage. case closed.

The trouble is, that's not the debate: the debate today is about government involvement and the right of law... and unless a "statesman" emerges to put this in proper context, the traditionalists cannot win this battle in the long term.

I will explain...don't flame me yet.

Marriage has been a Christian religious bond, and one adopted in one form or another by most other religions of the world for the purpose of ordaining and establishing The Family. This is simply a historical fact - it's not the point of debate I intend to raise here.

The problem in this country arose when the state got involved: establishing laws on who could and could not marry (underage, close relatives), plus licensing the practice. Next came taxation differences: IRS rules treating people differently depending on whether they were married. Add to this insurance differences, adoption practices, inheritance, and much much more: we talk about the "slippery slope" for many issues -- government involvement in marriage is the very definition of this. We truly now have two classes of people: those who can marry and financially benefit from that institution, and those who cannot. This is undeniable, and has been established now more by government than by God.

The result? Like it or not, this California judge has accurately pointed out that the laws are treating people differently, and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment should indeed apply. The barn door has been thrown wide open, and it's because the church (in whatever form you prefer) has embraced/allowed/tolerated government intrusion into its business. Now we're paying the piper, and there's no going back.

Well, maybe.

In my view, there's only one chance left to recover marriage in its current form. And that requires a communicator with a national voice, an undeniable reputation, and a common sense message. That message should be as follows: "It is in the compelling best interests of the United States that marriage be preserved and encouraged in the form of one man and one woman united to form a family. This family unit is the basis for all economic development, child creation and development, education, defense, and protection for this nation. It provides the year-over-year bonds of family that stabilizes us, establishes civil order, encourages careers, and ultimately provides a future that we can count on in this country."

While one can argue that there are people in the form of "life partners" or others who can establish that they can successfully achieve these high marks themselves (and certainly there are married families that likewise fail to achieve them), one cannot argue that over time, these points are better achieved through married families than any other entity. It is for this reason that the ideals of the 14th amendment must rank below the compelling interests of the United States to support, protect, and defend marriage in its current form. But because we have allowed the government to (already!) redefine marriage, we have likewise ceded the means of control. And based on current Constitutional law, I believe this kind of argument I've outlined here is the only means of rescue for marriage... and then only partially, for we frankly still have the government in control of it regardless.

I don't know that we have such a statesman who can sell this, but we need one quickly. It is nearly too late already.