Gay marriage went to the Supreme Court today. Two questions will be answered: First, is it required of states by the Constitution? Second, if granted by one state, must it be recognized legally by the others, whether they allow it or not?
We have no idea what the Supremes may do. Well, we have some idea: We note that the Supremes in 1803 (Marbury vs. Madison) appointed themselves in lieu of the Constitution, and we note that since then, the Court has been regularly accused without refutation, o following the election returns.
Ignoring that momentarily, what are the legalities? First, marriage is above all a contract. Historically, human society decided that since kids take years to mature and males like to flit from flower to flower, that said males had to be pinned down to raise those kids properly because it was too much to expect of a woman alone. Simple enough. Women are biologically stuck with responsibility; males are not. So for the sake of the species, males had to be stuck legally to their responsibilities for the good of all. We’ve said it twice; that ought to be enough.
Regardless, there’s one more reinforcement: The Church reinforced the contract, attaching sacramental values on top of the legal ones. (Or perhaps it was the other way around; we’re not sure. It was a long time ago.)
Homosexuals we note, have no children; when a partner bails out, there results no parent stuck with years of responsibility for new generations. This being so, society has no stake in the severed relationship; all that is lost is private, all being consenting adults, not helpless, innocent children. The future of the species is at no risk.
Consider: What does a homosexual gain from a marriage contract? They already live together at will and break up at will. What is gained is only the legal status of marriage. And notably, the financial incentives that society has attached to that. For instance, community property, joint filing status for taxes and a right to a spouse’s Social Security pension. (All funded by taxpayers.)
But joint tenancy does not require marriage. Tax and Social Security benefits, do require marriage. And these various financial goodies are the only things homosexuals cannot have, unmarried. All else that they claim to want is already available, one way or another. The only significant benefits of marriage to a homosexual couple not presently available sans marriage, are financial. It seems telling that only these issues are not mentioned in the ongoing public debate. Not very honest, mind, but telling.
Note too that the cost of those financial benefits when homosexual marriage is granted, remains ignored. It is ignored for the sound reason that it is very high for taxpayers, particularly the Social Security spousal rights. What it amounts to is that, once homosexual marriage exists, the accumulated subsidies for encouraging having children are no longer related to raising children. Kids in other words, are no longer subsidized. Homosexuals are subsidized instead.
Ask this: Is society better repaid by subsidizing children, or by subsidizing homosexuals? For these reasons, homosexual marriage seems to us, a costly and anti-social notion. Nor, as homosexuals have already access to all but those child subsidies without marriage, does “Fair” have ought to do with it.
It is true that Christian (and Jewish and Moslem and other) religious precepts have demonized homosexuality. We see no homosexuals who would freely have chosen their condition; it is no ‘free choice.’ as some want to have it. On the other hand, their condition cannot grant them rights not also enjoyed by all other humans. “Gay rights” do not exist, only human rights that are the same for all. That leads to some results uncomfortable for some.
If a homosexual is wrong to try to force his or her preferred behavior onto you in a democratic state, are you right in forcing your pattern onto him or her? That is not an easy question at times.
Whether landlord or baker of wedding cakes, you should provide your public business offerings to all who share human rights to them, regardless of their agreement or disagreement with your private concerns. A law-abiding homosexual has as much right to a baker’s wedding cake as anyone else, provided he or she pays for it. Its use is not the baker’s business.
In court, we must separate the marriage legal contract from the very human institution of marriage. And again from the religious sacrament of marriage. The State has authority over contract enforcement and definition. The Church governs sacraments. And human society controls mores. (“Render unto Ceasar …”)
We see nothing in the Constitution on marriage; but government is in charge of legal contracts. Including the marriage contract. Including as well, the existing subsidies of child-bearing in law. Government therefore has the power to alter the terms thereof, unpleasant as that may be for some. It exercises that as a right so long as it does so within the constraints of its bindings, constitutional or other.
Presently, the Western social trend is post-religious and amoral. Deplorable for the religious, a trend nevertheless. Glancing back at Obamacare, we expect the Supremes to legitimize gay marriage over the objections of religious folk. That is the trend that we see.
This will add but one more straw to a social camel’s back already loaded with single mothers, declining education, moral relativism and increasing poverty. And all that is also the trend. Trends must work themselves out; none of us can redirect them alone. We go under trying. We go under not trying, too …
We believe the game was lost by the arrival of female contraception and the very related legitimization of convenience abortion. Others may find their own signposts. Whatever your chosen indicator, the trend is clear enough.
A final note: The dissolute Roaring 20’s gave us in the 1930’s a much less acknowledged return to rectitude along with the Great Depression. It may, along with our new and greater depression yet unfinished, also occur again. Or not …
When all is said and done, homosexual spouses and the larger society will see on ly ashes in their hands. Both are being swindled by the politicians. Those wishing to doubt this have but to examine what the similar political approach has done for American black citizens since the Civil War.