There is a bill in the NH Legislative schedule that would redefine marriage out of the legal realm of the state: HB 569. Essentially, it would "demote" all marriages from the aspect of "the State"; the title or label of "marriage" would be the sole call of the private sector – in my reading of the bill, I could call my marriage a "marriage", but so could anyone else label their relationship such as well.
Frankly, I think this is a "run-away" bill; it removes politicians from the social battle of what constitutes a marriage and what doesn’t – and doesn’t solve the question. And it does deserve to be answered and settled – thus far, almost all of the decisions to recognize homosexual marriage has come from the Court (the favorite hangout for Liberals trying to change the social fabric of the country, as pretty much with the exception of NH, the general public has always voted it down as a step too far). It is a "punt" – it removes traditional marriage from what should be a pedestal and brings in, a la our government schools, the concept of "the lowest common denominator" to still the waves of political opinion.
So anyways, from FB:
The obvious problem is that many disagree that gay marriage is marriage from the traditional standpoint (and history). I disagree with the notion that by getting the State "out of marriage", it is merely hiding from the issue – it doesn’t solve the problem. In fact, it can make it worse. The idea was that Govt only sanctions civil unions and not marriage still allows the problem to fester in the social arena – anyone can call anything that they want a marriage.
By slinking away, the State also punts on the next issue – why should civil unions only be between two people?
And this bill specifically enumerates only 2. Major logical flaw in the bill is that number, for if one is going to get the State out of marriage, what is that logic surrounding the number two?
The moral authority in this country has been its Judeo-Christian background and philosophy (like it or not). This has been…
the underlying modus operandi for much of our legal system. The problem is, once that is removed, what is to prevent ANYTHING else from filling that vacuum? To this point, the gays have said "two" is the limiting factor but gender is irrelevant. This goes against almost any religious doctrine that is mainstream Western.
If you remove the religious aspect, WHY stop at two? I believe it to be wrong (same as SSM) for religious reasons, but since the militant gays are fine with the movement that sexual freedom trumps First Amendment expression of religion (as has already been shown in court cases), who are they to say "stop at two"?
Frankly, somebody is going to have to convince me that, since that dam has been breached, how anyone can limit marriage period?
And yes, back to the original point – getting the State out of marriage still allows the gay movement to actively pursue the overall agenda of forced acceptance. And I believe that those of us that disagree with it on moral / religious grounds will still be called haters, and worst case – face the aspect of being hauled into human rights tribunals or courts to pay for our transgressions when we speak against it.
Someone then brought up their personal history of problems – with seemingly the intimation of "it didn’t work out so well for me!". My response was the following:
I am sorry that your past with a traditional family has such sore spots – I, too, come from a broken home. Neither fact obviates the fact that a traditional marriage between a mother and a father is the best environment for child…ren. I’m quite sure that others have similar pasts – and many do not.
Another: "Can a society survive without any moral laws" – Who’s morals? And went on to say that (from what I read) that no one should enforce their morals on another – I disagreed:
We do have a moral background – our Founding Fathers built the philosophical foundation of this country not only only on past history (and putting in the checks and balances to mitigate the worst excesses and wrongs) but knew that the shared Judeo-Christian heritage at that time was the only set of morality that would satisfy the phrase "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom." (Franklin) because of the emphasis on the individual and God, which the Founders took as a basic brick of our society.
To have no common set of morals to to have a chaotic society – for who then is right or wrong? To say that there should be none is folly – for sooner or later, there may be none. And then what will the result be?
Not good, I’m afraid.
Next up was cost and the idea of a gay couple (who generally do not have kids) subsidizing a traditional family with kids:
The logical conclusion to your argument is to have no children at all and no governmental support at all. That demographic shift is working out JUST so well for Japan (who now may have crossed the Replacement Rubicon death spiral… a la Mark Steyn) and Europe, whose own population replacement ratio is propped up by massive Islamic immigration and reproduction. And if you have seen the Islamic demonstrations in London proclaiming death to kafirs (er, that would be us), THAT future doesn’t look too enticing either.
The traditional foundation of America has been (last 50 years excepted) the traditional family. Breaking that apart has worked oh so very well for the urban black family where out-of-wedlock births are skyrocketing – along with the rise in single-head-of-family units with respect to poverty.
A question as well – should we consider the family unit ONLY as a function of cost to others with respect to the tax code (a general question, not leading down any particular avenue except "what is the penultimate cost to society in changing it?").
And a good rejoinder to the effect of ‘er no, not suggesting a childless society" but then went to "…I personally think there is NO cost to society. None. What are you afraid of?"
Nothing is free; there is ALWAYS a cost to anything.
Right now, the cost is an enforced acceptance of a practice that many find repugnant. While much is made of the "liberty denying" aspect of saying no to gay marriage among the more Libertarian & secular folks amongst us, there is also the greater danger that is already here from the "liberty denying" actions of militant gays. Think I’m kidding? What about the photographer that didn’t want to photo a gay wedding, the Methodist group that didn’t want their facilities used for a gay wedding, or the doctor that didn’t wish to participate in an artificial insemination procedure for a lesbian couple?
They all got sued. That certainly is not "free". Legislation is being written to "protect" religious expression – but only if one is a minister/priest or employed by a religious organization. The rest of us of faith may well be sorely tested if we speak out against homosexuality – it WILL be categorized as hate speech. And don’t think for a moment that when opportunities show up to "make examples", that they would be passed over.
Already, an NEA official connected with their LGBT(xyz) program is officially stating that "…those opposed to homosexuality “are stuck in a binary box that religion and family create.”
http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1798/pub_detail.asp
So, schools will have the ability to teach contrary to parents faith tradition and parents will have no recourse (as in the case in MA).
Yes, there will be a societal cost as it becomes apparent that sexual license will trump the First Amendment.
We have seen the retribution of California’s Prop 8 opponents – take a look at the list that the Heritage Foundation compiled here.
