Posted on 08/10/2010 10:32:50 AM PDT by NYer
When do you know it's over? When do you know that civilization has collapsed inwardly to such an irreparable extent that the next stop is barbarism? When is that Weimar moment?
Certainly, the legalization of abortion was one such moment, as barbarism is defined as the inability or unwillingness to recognize another person as a human being. Abortion is the denial of procreative sex by nullifying its effects, which are seen as accidental. If you have an accident and conceive a baby, you can just clean up the mess by aborting it.
Now we are experiencing another Weimar moment, which also denies procreative sex by accepting sodomy as a morally normative act. It regards the embrace of homosexual marriage in last week's ruling by a federal judge in San Francisco.
As a result of the successful passage of Proposition 8, the California constitution states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This provision was challenged by several gay couples, the plaintiffs in the case, as a denial of due process and their right to equal protection under the law.
The original defendants in the case, Attorney General Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to defend their state constitution in court, even though Proposition 8 was passed by a majority of their citizens. For this, a Californian might think, they ought to be impeached for dereliction of duty. Brown and Schwarzenegger should not be able to choose which parts of California's constitution they will uphold and which they will not. Their absence left an apparently less than competent volunteer team to defend the provision.
The outcome of the deliberations? On August 4, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that marriage is not between a man and a woman.
Where could he have gotten this idea? It turns out that the judge himself is a homosexual. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, another judge, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the trial, said, "He [Walker] has a private life and he doesn't conceal it, but doesn't think it is relevant to his decisions in any case, and he doesn't bring it to bear in any decisions."
It is more than a stretch to believe that Walker's life as a homosexual did not affect his decision concerning homosexual rights. Would a person engaged in the very activity that is being questioned in law be the best one to judge on its legal character? One of the most elementary principles of justice is that one should not judge a case in which one has an interest. But Judge Walker apparently did not feel the need to recuse himself, though it would seem obvious that he, as a homosexual, would have a personal interest in the outcome.
In fact, the judge is a beneficiary of his own ruling -- not only in the direct sense that he could now marry another homosexual person if he so wished, but in the larger rationalization of homosexual acts as being morally normative. His 136-page ruling can be seen as a bald act of self-justification, which he now enforces upon the broader public as legally mandatory.
This, of course, is a major misuse of law, but it has its precedents, as already mentioned concerning the legalization of abortion. In The Ethics, Aristotle noted what impels this misuse: "Men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives." People who live morally disordered lives -- and a life centered on homosexual acts is morally disordered -- must always search for rationalizations that permit them to continue their behavior. Otherwise, their conscience rebels (see The Culture of Vice). Judge Walker's revolutionary ruling is indubitably tied to his private life, the rationalization for which he now requires everyone to accept -- according the U.S. Constitution, no less.
Let us examine the rationalizations in his decision.
Judge Walker declares that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." This, he contends, is wrong because marriage is a basic right.
However, one has a "right" or is "free" to marry only in so far as one is capable of being married. One does not have a right to a vocation in life that one cannot perform the duties of. Does one have the "right" to be a fireman if one cannot quickly climb a ladder and lift a heavy hose? Does one have a "right" to serve in the military if one cannot physically meet its demands?
What, then, might be the minimal demands of marriage which one must be capable of performing? One of those martial duties, as in the two examples above, is actually physical, though its implications and true meaning extend far beyond the merely physical.
Common law holds that a marriage is not valid until it is consummated. What does consummating a marriage mean? It means and has always meant by law an act of vaginal intercourse between the husband and wife.
If this act does not take place, the marriage can be legally declared a nullity. Until consummation, it is subject to annulment. Therefore, becoming one flesh is not optional for a legally valid marriage. If one is incapable of consummating a marriage or simply unwilling to do so for any reason, there can be no marriage, and therefore the "right" to it is irrelevant. Similarly, if one cannot perform as a fireman, the right to be a fireman is also irrelevant.
How does Judge Walker get around this? By ignoring it -- and with this bit of legerdemain: He states that the ability to produce offspring has never been a prerequisite for granting heterosexual couples marriage licenses. This, of course, is true, but he segues from it to the clear implication that an act of sodomy can therefore replace vaginal intercourse to consummate a marriage. He implies this, though the word "sodomy," the elephant in the room, is never mentioned in his decision.
He was wise, if not entirely honest, in not using the word, because it has never before been thought that sodomy could legally consummate a marriage, regardless of the fertility or infertility of the couple. Many state laws forbade sodomy. Since some even included prohibitions of it within marriage, it was inconceivable that marital consummation could have meant anything but vaginal intercourse.
For homosexual couples, the marital act is physically impossible -- the pieces don't fit -- and the attempt to ape it through sodomy is hygienically compromised and incapable in any circumstances of generating new life. For these reasons, among many others, common law has held through the centuries that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
In light of this, it is astonishing that Judge Walker could state in his conclusion that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license" (my emphasis). Is it not rational to state that those incapable of consummating a marriage cannot in fact be married? It seems quite irrational to say otherwise.
Judge Walker's big issue is the denial of equality and the discriminatory nature of Proposition 8. However, everyone is equal before this law, because no man and woman can be denied marriage for reasons of race, creed, or color. No extraneous issues can be brought to bear outside of the qualification that it takes a man and a woman to marry. Homosexuals and lesbians are also equal before this law in so far as they are willing, respectively, to find a woman or a man with whom to marry. Proposition 8 does not single out anyone; it simply defines marriage as marriage has always been defined. Like any law, it distinguishes between those who qualify and those who do not.
Similarly, because of the principle of equality, everyone has the right to consent in the manner in which they are governed. However, in order to exercise this right -- expressed as the right to vote -- one must meet the qualifications of voter registration as to age, residence, etc. If one is unwilling to register or has not reached the proper age, one cannot exercise the right. A child cannot; neither can an insane person. In some states, neither can felons.
Relevant disqualifications for marriage include consanguinity -- brothers and sisters cannot marry no matter how much they love each other. Neither can children, the insane, or those who are already married. Could anyone reasonably argue that children, the insane, bothers and sisters, or the already married are not equal before the law regarding marriage? Because you cannot meet the stipulations of a law does not mean you are unequal before it.
The law that forbids drunk driving, for instance, applies equally to everyone, including alcoholics. Because an alcoholic is more likely to break this law, or because it may be harder for him or perhaps even impossible to observe, does this mean the law is a violation of his due process and equality before the law? What would Judge Walker say?
Judge Walker, however, takes greatest umbrage at the "belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples" or "the belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women." On what could such a "belief" be based? He suggests either "animus toward gays and lesbians," which of course is inadmissible, or "moral disapproval of homosexuality," which very well might be admissible, depending on its relationship to the common good.
However, Walker dismisses morality altogether as an insufficient basis for legislation. This is in sync with his purported libertarian beliefs. He concludes that "Proposition 8 finds support only in such [moral] disapproval," and is therefore unconstitutional. However, law is by its nature moral, as it stakes its claim to make something better, rather than worse, which has to be ultimately judged against a standard of the "good." Without morality, law is reduced to the rule of the stronger.
While dismissing the morality of his opponents as inadmissible, Judge Walker goes on to legislate his own stealth morality. He avers, in effect, that it is wrong -- in other words, immoral -- to deny homosexual and lesbians a "right" to marry, because this is a violation of the principle of equality. Now, equality is a moral principle. Therefore, Judge Walker completely contradicts himself in asserting that morality is an insufficient basis for the law, when morality is exactly what he uses to justify his decision in changing the law. Is this hypocritical or simply ignorant?
On the other hand, Judge Walker never addresses what might be immoral in the acts of homosexuals that would lead others to the attitude that heterosexual marriage is "morally superior" to same-sex marriage. He puts it all down to changing attitudes. He called the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage "an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and marriage." Being a good historicist, he states, "That time has passed." In fact, he insists that same-sex partners can do anything in marriage (except consummating it?) as well as heterosexual couples, including child-rearing.
As a parent, this makes me wonder. When my children were younger, they used to think that, if my wife and I removed our wedding rings, they would disappear. We never told them that. Yet they instinctively understood that their very existence depended upon the love between my wife and me. They sensed that they were incarnations of this love, and they therefore concluded that if it were broken they would disappear.
For all of Judge Walker's fulminations about the absolute equivalency of heterosexual and homosexual parenting, the children raised by two males or two females would never have that instinctive sense about the beginnings of their existence in the love of their parents -- for the obvious reason that they could not originate in the relationship between two males or two females. This will leave these children with the lifelong quest for their real origins, or suffering from their being unable to discover them and wondering why at least one of their real parents did not want them. Even the laudable love of adoptive parents cannot overcome this instinctual problem.
Another of Judge Walker's extraordinary rationalizations is that "the evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples" (emphasis added). This is a startling claim. How about a biologist? Can he tell the difference? Or a proctologist? How about a gynecologist? Might they not notice some slight difference between the two?
Judge Walker's decision is not only irrational; it is a denial of reality. Socrates said that the worst thing a person could do was to lie in his soul about what is. This is such a lie. It denies what is between a man and a woman in marriage. As bad as this is for the poor souls who have organized their lives around a moral disorder, it is even worse for the political order that publically adopts it for its own -- since it is marriage properly understood that is essential for civilization's survival. Publically enforced lies about what is are evil. That is why this is a Weimar moment.
These moments are flares in the night, distress signals, calls for moral rescue before a tsunami engulfs all memory of moral order. Signals have been sent. They still hang in the night sky, the last illumination before bearings are lost. In the darkness that descends, who will answer the cries for help? Will it be those who have been told to be less than men and women in marriage?
You left out quite a few, probably through good taste.
Pedophilia, incest, necrophilia and ad nauseum would be legal as well.
The whole thing is a ploy by the LBGTQ types to legally force the rest of us to respect and honor them, regardless of our feelings. They want to force approval of their perversion. If they're successful, every perversion will demand equal treatment.
Sorry, but the line needs to be drawn here. We must tell the homosexuals "Sorry. You don't have the right to force everybody to approve of your perversion. Period."
And make it stick.
No, it's essentially just a matter of one group wanting to do something, and demanding that others approve.
What I see in the real estate business, single moms get the worst of it. The guys almost always disappear when they find out raising a child is not easy and requires a change in lifestyle. Would it be so bad for responsible men that can shoulder the burden to have multiple wives?
I no longer believe that to be the case.
Thirty years ago NOBODY would have believed that homosexuals would be allowed to marry. How big a leap from there is polygamy? What is the real difference between two women marrying and a man marrying two or more women?
Starting in the 60s the left came up with the "free love" movement complete with "open marriages." By the 1980s society had reached a point where unmarried people living together was no longer considered taboo by many. During this same time homosexuality was forced on society and we were told that homosexuals were "born this way," eventually much of society stopped considering homosexuality to be taboo. Now they are forcing homosexuality on us. But, what people don't realize is that this was NEVER about having "equal marriage rights," it was about DESTROYING the institution of marriage altogether. Keep in mind that the people telling us that we shouldn't be bothered by homosexual marriage are the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who told us twenty or thirty years ago that marriage wasn't necessary between men and women and that it made more sense to live together unmarried and avoid divorce.
Do not doubt for a minute that the agenda of the secular left has changed, this is just a new tactic.
Pretty much the same.
I agree that most people see the sense of it, but we have an imperial ruling class that over rules the will of the people. The judiciary is just one segment of this imperial ruling class. At some point people will say enough.
They love to talk about being allowed to visit each other in the hospital. I have been waiting for years for someone to give me the name of just one hospital that has a policy that prohibits homosexuals from visiting each other.
Yes
Now the question is why does one group want to stop the other group from doing something. In this case I think there are a lot of reasons that a society should say no to homosexual marriage. The top reason from my perspective being God doesn't want any of us doing it, so society should not be promoting it.
I believe that God knows what we are going to do, including our sexual proclivities, even before He creates us. I don’t believe our sexual orientation matters much to Him.
Great example, nobody denies someone access. Also, how hard is it to set up a health proxy, or to arrange that all your assets are owned equally, or to make someone the beneficiary of your life insurance, or executor of your estate.
If the "imperial ruling class" forces the country into this, how long will it be before the affluent homosexuals realize that by living with someone long enough they become your common law spouse and have rights to your wealth.
I can give you the names of two hospitals in soCal, from personal experience, who do not allow non-family members into ICU patient rooms.
There is a difference between orientation and doing something. In the case of homosexuality it's pretty clear the act is not smiled on.
Even pedophiles?
And are you certain that this extends to unmarried "partners"?
Exactly. You can name ANYONE on a health proxy, own property jointly with ANYONE and make ANYONE a beneficiary of an insurance policy or an heir to your estate.
This is like saying that God knows what genocidal maniacs, mass murderers, rapists and the like are going to do before He creates them and it "doesn't matter much to him."
Kinda throws out that whole "they won't let me see my partner" nonsense doesn't it!
The whole issue has nothing to do with having the same benefits as married couples. They can establish all the same legal obligations and protections if they really want to. The issue is about status. They want homosexuality considered "normal". It's not.
As far as I know the legal protections are already there and have been for centuries. Keep in mind that it wasn’t that long ago that women weren’t allowed to own or inherit property under many forms of Common Law, men have ALWAYS been allowed to leave property to other men and legal partnerships have been recognized for centuries.
I’ve been to visit far more non-relatives in hospitals than relatives, unless they are in ICU or CCU I’ve always just walked right in. Nobody in the hospital cares what your relationship is.
I’m not certain of anything except what the nurse told me. If you really need verification, I suggest you call around.
Barry McGuire - Eve of Destruction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntLsElbW9Xo
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.