So, gay activists, where do you think this will end up? You’ve started the snowball rolling down the hill…

by Skip

If This Is Marriage Why Isn't This?(H/T: Karen)

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.

Leave a Comment

  • Anonymous

    By upholding the new law on marriage, the government has given “standing” before the courts by those that seek any alternative life-style. When I made the same argument as Skip did, I was condemned by friend and foe alike. Yet another example of unintended consequences. 

  • C. dog e. doG

    Skip –
    You missed the inherent contradiction of your statement: “Government, not our Creator, is in charge of handing out Rights if you simply have the right political juice”, but you clearly advocate for Grate State involvement in the marriage business.  At least you acknowledge there is no mentioning of marriage in the NH or U.S. constitutions, and if powers are not specifically enumerated, there should be no involvement by same, nor was there for quite some time.  

    So why now do you advocate for what is clearly a perpetuation of unconstitutional involvement in this matter between whomever and however they describe it?  Why not return this practice back to the churches from whence it came?  And thereby restore equity under law; no special privileges doled out by the State for this or that special interest group, be it Bob & Suzy, or Bob & Bruce.
    – C. dog remains on track

    • Anonymous

       C. dog e. doG, the line of reasoning that don762 holds true as well.  What has happened over the centuries is that society figured out that the best foundation for itself was strong traditional values.  What the gay marriage proponents have said is that “hey, we won’t hurt your marriage” – but now the way that I raise my family is now under attack.  My faith, my beliefs, and what I would want to inculcate to my children will now be subverted, legally, by the State.  In MA, we have already see court cases that if the school is going to teach “Heather has two Mommies”, I would have absolutely no recourse to pull them out and in some cases, be brought to a Star Chamber type tribunal.    Even religious institutions are under attack simply for living their faith (e.g., the Mormon Church in CA, the Methodist campground in NJ).

      What we are seeing is the slow eroding of religious freedom by militants who are forcing an acceptance of homosexual behavior on society (accept us or we will silence you campaigns) and denigrating other on religious grounds.

      Even though the US is still the most religious amongst the First World nations, secularism is moving forward faster and faster.  As that happens, the idea of a Creator will become less and less important – just as Progressives wish.  That pillar of our Republic, that our Rights come from God and not from other men, will fade faster and faster.

      What happens then,  C. dog e. doG?  There will be no more American Exceptionalism, will there?  If that is gone, what would be our foundation?  C, go back to the beginning of the last century and tell me that we have held fast to our American ideals and not traded them for socialist ones?  All one has to do is look at that famous Communist (no lovers of American style freedom) issues list of the 40’s (30’s) wanted – what is left for them to accomplish as Big Government regulates what’s left away.

      • Doris Hohensee

         Skip, you raise a valid point. The coercive nature or uniformity of public education undermines peaceful coexistence between those with divergent viewpoints.  Individuals should not be compelled to support public instruction to which they are conscientiously opposed.  We need to allow individuals to freely separate themselves and the school portion of their property taxes from a school district if it’s objectionable.  This was allowed prior to separation of church and state and the hypocrisy is assuming that public instruction can be non-divisive even if it is nominally non-sectarian.  We need to go back to our constitutional roots.  This would provide real educational choice and allow parents to raise their children as they see fit.

      • C. dog e. doG

        Grok –
        Society is merely a construct of the mind.  It consists of gossamer wing flitting about the ethers; it is incapable of figuring out anything.  More importantly, the purpose of forming a government is not for the serf to then serve that government.  Remember, that was the fundamental basis for the American Revolution.  Turn the book over, it’s right there in the U.S. and NH constitutions.  The only reason for someone to voluntarily contract with a government is for that government to protect that person from those wishing to do harm to that person’s freedom.  
        With this as the foundation, I hardly see how shacking up with someone in any way is the b’ness of such a Government.  I certainly see how it would be for an all-intrusive Nanny State, but not an organization built to defend free peoples.  And yes, these same peoples are then also free to belong to any religious order they wish, and participate in those traditions appertaining thereto, including marriage.  And just for the record, those practices and traditions vary widely, depending on whether one belongs to Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Scientology, etc. Churches.  Let people decide the nature of their marriage, just as they should be allowed to do the same regarding the educating of their chil’ren.  

        That’s how a state of free people would operate.  Those seeking freedom should be trying to unlock the shackles, not adding to them.
        – C. dog ain’t fallin’ for Conservative rope-a-dope

        • Anonymous

           Society may be a construct of the mind but the decisions made by those “gossamer wings” have real decisions in the concrete world. 

          The mistake made is there there are two constructs – the Constitutions are formulated to govern the government – not to create a new set of morals.  Tell me, dog, then why wasn’t homosexual marriage allowed way back then?   Society also has its “unwritten rules” besides those “written govt” ones – are we to totally ignore them completely?

          And if so, does that mean that the only morality should come from Govt’s public laws?  For what has happened is that Govt has done EXACTLY what you accuse it of – it is in the process of stepping on MY freedom of religious expression.  Look what has already happened to people of faith in the public square on the issue of gay marriage?  And now, Govt (via Progressives) are now forcing religious institutions to act against their theology – and telling individuals that they have no right to their personal religious morality in the public square via the HHS Mandate.

          Works both ways – and I feel that one religion, secular humanism, is now the Official Establishment of Government and it is now out to extinguish all other theologies under the rubric of that unconstitutional “separation of church and State”.

          • C. dog e. doG

            There was no need for homosexual marriages way back then because there were no State Sanctioned heterosexual marriages back then. That’s the beauty of my solution: I remove all anti-constitutional special privileges conferred to this and that coupling activity. Puff! Immediately, you rid your self of forced recognition of anyone’s religious practices. And isn’t that one or two of the fundamental elements that wrought the mighty constitutions of NH and US: religious freedom and equity under law?

            And yes, I do recognize that damnable notion concocted by control freaks has let loose a Frankenstein Monster on the village idiots, and others in its wake. They pray to this thing they created, imbued it with grate power (guns and money), and now it preys upon them. Really, I would laugh if I did not have to involuntarily participate in the tragically ironic ordeal.

            And societies have all sorts of rules, but free societies are comprised of free people who decide, because they are principled, to let others chose their own paths. Morality in personal behavior is truly in the eye of the beholder. With respect to couplings, some prefer your way, some prefer Mormon old-school, some prefer a more Spartan bent. So long as freedom is preserved, that is the categorical imperative, otherwise, you are a slave in a slave state (The Grate State).

            And this is where you become entrapped in the web that those before you had woven: as they had lobbied the State to grant them special privilege and recognition for their brand of marriage, so too those you now battle are seeking the same from this wunderful State. From my vantage point up here on the White Mtns, seems to me a whole lot of trampling has been going on and there is only one moral way to fix it, but few are virtuous enough the acknowledge what the fix is because clearly, the fix is in on all manner of fronts including the good ship HHS Mandate.

            Personally, I like the ring of a sovereign New Hampshire. I wonder if that’s still Constitutional?
            – C. dog sees a world upside down, and wishes to Right it

  • http://www.facebook.com/timothy.horrigan Timothy Horrigan

    Skip. if you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, you are free not to get married at all.  Or, alternatively, you can marry a person of the opposite sex.  Under current NH law, you can only marry one person at a time but he or she can be of either gender.   It’s not really much different from the old pre-2007 marriage law.

    • Anonymous

       Once again, Timothy, you are technically correct but miss the entire premise. 

      “It’s not really much different from the old pre-2007 marriage law.”

      Oh please, stop being so dull, Timothy.  The only thing that is the same is the number 2.  Period.  There is absolutely no way that you could convince me that “it’s not really much different” if you swapped my Deb with your Dan.

  • Anonymous

    Here is the thing. Society has the right to say what is acceptable behavior and what is not. People have a “right” to smoke, yet we are still banning them from doing so in almost every place on the planet. Some cities are trying to ban smoking in their city- even for those who would smoke only within their own home in that city! Remember- Every single law that is passed is a moral judgement on something. A law says that this is good and that is bad. At every point in society, one group is “forcing” another group to live within the legal confines of the first groups moral determinations and limits. Anyone who does not understand this most basic of principles is either willfully ignorant, or ignoring the obvious. Although they still have their right to an opinion, it is only their opinion, and not rooted in grounded legal principles.

    • C. dog e. doG

      Sounds like you are advocating for tyranny of the majority, a/k/a mobocracy.  Hardly the sturdy stuff which the wigged ones forged some 200+ years ago.  I pray that one day your grounded legal principles, whatever that means, will in fact be grounded into a fine powder sot that I may be free.
      – C. dog, citizen of Freedom, tethered to no one

  • Anonymous

    One thing more- If government gets out of the marriage business, chaos could follow. When it becomes “legal” to marry more than one other person, a CEO could “marry” everyone in his or her company. Every employee now being a spouse, the cost of medical coverage would be greatly reduced for the company. Even Obamacare could not match those rates.That could  bankrupt their system! Hey, wait a minute……….. I’ve changed my mind!

    • C. dog e. doG

      So don 762, this chaos of which you speak abounded before Nanny State took over the reigns of the marriage business from This and That Church?  I don’t recall reading that in my public – delete that, government – school text book, nor my catechism text for that matter.  This is typical Conservative/Liberal backwash that people, left to their own devices, will devolve into chaos, therefore, we need the strong arm of Government to make sure they ain’t misbehavin’.  Turn the page.
      – C. dog reads from the self-reliant text book now

      • Anonymous

         Being self-reliant, dog, is a virtue that we seemingly have lost.  However, while I am a proponent of Liberty & Freedom, that people get to choose for themselves, it seems that I must part company with you a tad.  It seems that you are advocating for an absolute environment – which leaves a huge problem, like “our government is meant for a virtuous people”.  When I look at the current environment, it is easy to ask “Are we still the virtuous people at the Founding?” and come up with a negative answer.  The Libs / Progressives have advocated, for decades, a more and more libertine social fabric.  Thus, everyone has the liberty to do what they wish as that little governor that used to be present that said “really think that’s right?” has been duct-taped and thrown into the chasm.

        As a Conservative, I believe that we need to have an ordered society; the question is, if we can break the hold of Progressive thought upon the populace, how to balance that need for that ordered society (in which social mores are almost gone) and individual freedom?

        • C. dog e. doG

          Actually, the Libs like many Repubs. say one thing, but do quite the opposite. Dumbocrats often hail multi-culturalism and diversity, yet allow none but their world view to receive the light of Government. Likewise, Repubs often paint a high gloss freedom on their prose, yet deliver packages that are barely discernible from that extruded from their Siamese twin in the other party.

          You either are for freedom, or you are not. One is either free to pursue their happiness, or they are not free to endure their servitude. And please, ditch the rewrites of history. The colonialists were far from virtuous, unless you consider extended bout of drunkenness, taking peoples’ property, and of course, murder to be exemplary behavior of the virtuous.

          I say, let people live with the consequences of their actions, and let’s be done with it. Freedom is not about order, that’s what slavery is about, be it Fascism, Socialism, Feudalism, or just about any other “ism”. The only rule required is that people voluntarily engage, or be left the “H” alone to their own devices, and yes, vices. The road is clear, but there are so few fellow travelers.
          – C. dog remains incognito until the numbers change in his favor, or finds a refuge

      • Anonymous

         Skip hits the nail squarely on the head- at every point. We all want liberty and to respect the rights of others. Yet there needs to be some modest and sensible control on the appetites of man.

        John Adams said that the Constitution was written for a moral people; it is inadequate to the governance of any other, has now been proven true. I’m 60 years old, and I have seen dramatic changes since I was a kid. Almost all of it not good. I have a panoramic perspective of society that younger folks don’t have. And, quite frankly, the view sucks.

        The point of the CEO marrying his employees still stands. Who would we be to “judge” whether or not they loved each other. They would have the right! And that is the point.

        • C. dog e. doG

          And who decides these “sensible and modest” controls? Why is there a need beyond the most fundamental of proclamations in the Constitutions that the primary reason for a government at all was to protect one’s freedom from the infringement by others? Then you can go forth and seek you happiness, be it booty of one kind or another? And if that crazy-ass CEO can find a bevy of employees crazy enough to marry him/her, have at it. Just leave the the “H” out of that crazy house, and remind me not to buy stock in that company of crazies.
          – C. dog makes his point without enslaving anyone

  • Pingback: Granite Groks’ Top Twenty Posts For 2012 — GraniteGrok()

  • Pingback: Granite Grok’s Top Twenty Posts For 2012 « Live Free or Die()

Previous post:

Next post: