Suitable since the repeal of the gay marriage law failed here in NH. I take an old fashioned view of marriage – the traditional one-man-one-woman definition of such. Two people, two genders. Now, there will be the h8 mail inbound, I’m sure – there was the last time I brought up the “slippery slope”. Hey, I’m only going by what Ron Tunning (former Laconia, NH Democrat Chair and militant gay activist) sputtered when I asked the question during a radio interview: what about polyandry and polygamy? Sputtered was the operative word – he could hardly contain himself.
Yet, from a societal aspect, it is a valid question. If the Judeo-Christian philosophy on which this country was found is removed, what takes its place? Certainly, the Constitution never talked about marriage – it was assumed as a fact in evidence and a non-controversial issue (why else would George Washington have a “drumming out” ceremony). Now that the two-genders-taboo has been broken, what is to stop “2” as being the magical number? After all, Ron Tunning basically said that our rights are merely based on the quality and quantity of the lobbyists hired – and not those given to us by our Creator. And make no mistake, there are those that actively advocating for plural marriages to be legal here in the US as my fingers touch the keyboard.
So, the takeaway? We may be on two slippery slopes – that marriage may well evolve so much that it becomes irrelevant to society as a nucleus for ordered living, and that Government, not our Creator, is in charge of handing out Rights if you simply have the right political juice.
Neither, in my opinion, is a positive development.