In a November 26 opinion piece,” Urban Cure founder Star Parker (whose website says she’s running for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 37th Congressional District in Los Angeles County, Ca.) writes:
One significant development in the recent election was that voters in four states approved same-sex marriage initiatives. Until now, all previous state referendums to approve same-sex marriage — 32 of them — failed.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page — where conservatives usually turn to for intellectual capital — saw this as cause for celebration.
According to the Journal, marriage definition should come from voters, not from court orders. Americans, they argue, have “shown themselves more than capable of changing their views on gay marriage the democratic way.”
In other words, our definition of marriage should follow process, not principle. Let voters decide.
“As views on gay marriage change, and a growing number of Americans support it, politics will follow. This is how it’s supposed to work.”
I’d guess if I asked the Wall Street Journal editors if the U.S. Constitution should be viewed as a “living document” — if our understanding of its words and what they mean should be open to change to reflect attitudes of the moment — they would say “no.”
Liberals think the Constitution should be re-engineered every few years like an iPad.
So it is not surprising when liberals, for whom tradition is meaningless, trash once-sacred institutions in favor of impulses of the moment.
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a logical argument in opposition to gay marriage, and Parker’s is just as illogical as the others, relying not on concrete evidence of any harm gay marriage could cause (I wonder why…) but on the key words and catch phrases and emotional appeals that have been used as a tactic since early man discovered he had no actual argument and had better pull out the clubbing stick to make his point.
Parker attacks liberals by saying they (okay, we) don’t value tradition, but don’t most of us celebrate Christmas, eat turkey on Thanksgiving, and drink on New Year’s Eve? What traditions is she referring to?
Also, like conservatives, we LOVE the tradition of marriage. We love it so much we want all consenting adult partners to be able to do it. Just like Christians and conservatives, we’re for it even if the partners involved are only doing it because someone is (oopsie!) pregnant, bored, or just feeling a little nutty on an otherwise hum-drum Tuesday. We just think the “partners” who get to participate in the sacredness should include the same-sex (and/or other sex or transgender sex) ones.
Parker also says above that liberals are in support of changing the U.S. Constitution on a whim, using a hypothetical conversation with the Wall Street Journal as a launching pad for this position, but she doesn’t point to any instances of liberals trying to amend the federal constitution to specifically define and allow gay marriage. However, she also (conveniently) doesn’t address conservative efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as something that can legally only occur between a man and a woman.
Anyway, back to the “once-sacred institution” of marriage (and these are points I’m hardly the first to make), I’m curious to know at what point in history marriage was generally understood to be, and treated as if it were, sacred (outside of the 1600’s puritan community).
– Marrying for money: legal in all states
– Marrying for social status: legal in all states
– Marrying for business: legal in all states
– Marrying your first cousin: legal in Alabama, Alaska, and Arizona
– Marriage performed one drunk evening because you were drunk: recognized in all states
Marriage and family form the pillar of any healthy society. Marriage is the institution through which children are born and raised and through which time-tested truths and values are transmitted from one generation to the next.
– Marrying with no intention of having children: legal in all states
– Marrying while unable to have children: legal in all states
Also, please show me this list of “time tested truths and values” families transmit. Do they include the philosophy driving the physical and sexual abuse, neglect, abandonment, and murder of children we see occurring in so many very special, very sacred, heterosexual-marriage households?