Thursday, August 05, 2010

Prop 8 Overturned Against the Will of the People

A judge has overturned California's Prop 8 ruling. Of course, when it went to referendum, the people of California upheld the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But a judge claims this is unconstitutional and it has been overturned.

Of course, we also know that in Argentina, the government is allowing same sex marriage, the first South American country to do so. How is this happening? Who is to blame? Should anyone be allowed to get married?

I think it all comes back to the definition and purpose of marriage. Heterosexual couples are as much to blame for this situation as anyone else because everyday people have lost the true meaning of marriage.

Our modern day view of marriage is quite different than it has been historically. Nowadays people view marriage as an arrangement indicating that two people have loving feelings for each other and decide they want to be together. That's it. That's marriage.

With this definition, how can you deny any two people the possibility of marrying? I believe that's why heterosexual couples are to blame for this current state of affairs.

Historically, marriage was viewed as a covenant between a man and a woman to form the building block of society which is the family. Children naturally sprang forth from the love of spouses. Childlessness was seen as a very sad thing. Also, love was not a fleeting feeling, but rather a decision of the will. Divorce also was not an option because it was believed that God joined this couple together.

But from that original definition, we have dramatically strayed. Marriage has become about fuzzy feelings of a couple. Children are no longer a natural offshoot of a marriage but are carefully planned through contraception and possibly abortion. Parents will "design" a perfect family - them and one boy and one girl. The children are almost ego-boosts.

Once the fuzzy feelings end, many couples decide to divorce, caring nothing about the develpoment of their children. They are falsely told it's much better for the children if they split up. Plus, why just stay for these kids. They have needs which aren't being met. It's completely selfish.

Many couples even choose to not have any children at all. Not that they are unable to have children, they simply choose that path. Children are completely optional to a marriage. In fact, the permanence of marriage is something fewer and fewer people believe in.

So if marriage is nothing more than a mere feeling between two people, how can we justify it being only between a man and a woman.

Homosexual marriage is not valid as it is opposed to what marriage actually is. Marriage IS something. It has a definition. What exactly IS marriage? Well, nowadays there would be many different answers. However, historically the answer has always been the union of a man and woman for life for unity and the procreation of children. Therefore, I find it odd when people say marriage is a "right" for gay people. Obviously if the definition of marriage precludes relationships other than man-woman, then it is not a right.

Where do rights come from in the first place? Rights have limitations by definition, so to claim that everyone has the same rights is not true. Would it be correct for a 14 year old to claim he has the right to drive a vehicle? How about a drunk person, or someone with poor eyesight? The right to drive is given to people who are capable of fitting the definition of what constitutes a legal driver.

So what is marriage? If we include two people of the same sex as a possible combination for marriage, then we radically change the definition. It now comes down to a fleeting feeling. It's not about children, or procreativity, or sexual complementarity, or complementarity in general, or permanence. Obviously it loses its religious basis, since virtually no religion endorses same sex marriage. It becomes a legal agreement between two individuals.

What then would prevent a father and daughter from marrying, or two buddies, or any other combination of people? Why not three, four, five, or more people in a single marriage?

Obviously the government recognizes marriage for some reason. It does not recognize mere relationships. You do not have to apply to the government to date someone or to fall in love with them. So the government recognizes something more than an intimate relationship in marriage that makes it worth official government status. They recognize its benefit to society. Marriage is the building block of society because as the family goes, so goes the country, and ultimately the world.

Once the government recognizes any grouping of people as "marriage", it will lose all benefit. There will be no need for the government to even recognize marriage at all.

Prop 8 is probably going to go to the Supreme Court of the United States. Hopefully there they will do the right thing.


  1. Yes, hopefully they will do the right thing... allow the gays to marry. This isn't about religion, it's about civil rights and freedom.

  2. Joseph, Ireland.6:55 am, August 05, 2010

    Your an extremely intelligent and well written person, I compliment you on your writing style.

    Your style possesses this power (much sought) that although it visualises what you really want to say, it never actually says it. You are allowed to evoke sentiments you know are unfounded, and have profound effect (especially to your target audience of prodominantly white middleclass christians).

    Terms such as Divorce, abortion, marraige with children/ add to a debate about gay marraige things christians 'are meant to oppose'; and you seem to feed on that to come about the conclusion :
    "hey, from reading this article, christians arent meant to like abortion, divorce, contraception, etc. Christianity is important to me, so I should believe in these things too".

    Stop tainting one issue with another.

    Another point you make....about rights. Rights are human based. Rights are collectively decided upon by humanity (no divine intervention there). The right to drive for example was decided in my country to be 17, in yours 16 (i'm assuming, please ignore if wrong. If tommorow my country decided that 16 year olds had the right to drive, then they have the power to change that, as the right was orginally designed by humans.
    (In regards to changing rights and people; prop 8 was deemed unconsituational because first people were given the right, and then taken away with no real lawful basis other than the people of california wanting it gone (please see..well, laws passed in Germany during the great wars regarding jews, the fact that your for-fathers owned slaves etc)

    And finally; cant you see the redundancy of your fight? Its a losing battle to deny homosexuals the position they have been fighting for for generations. Humans are extremely resilent and continue to exist even in the most extreme of conditions, as too is the battle for homosexuals. I speak as an Irish person (im not sure if you know much about Irish conservatism, but divorce was only legal in the 90's, homosexuality decriminalised in the 90's etc), all fights of 'liberal' issues were fought by the catholic church and lost.

    Its plain to me to see that your church is falling at all sides; why not pick your battles more appropriatly?

  3. A very articulate and well-written article. I completely agree that the meaning of "marriage" has a set definition that cannot be tampered with by any law. Although I have no qualms about same-sex partners falling in love and having legal rights to insurance, property, and inheritance, I believe also that the term "marriage" is reserved for a union between a man and a woman.

  4. I suppose it's true that marriage used to be about a man and a woman making a union to create a family. Although until a few generations ago, it was also a financial deal. But the human race is progressing. Aren't we allowed to change? Can't we amend our traditions as we evolve? Each day, more people come to the understanding that religion poisons minds and creates delusional beliefs. We don’t need the dogma and the close-minded, archaic ways of living. So Phil can go ahead and try to characterize minority rights voted on by the majority as the "will of the people", but the world is slowly moving toward acceptance and equality, and people like him will be left behind.