“Marriage” Means Something
Filed under: culture, debate, democracy, Ellen, family, gay, happiness, homosexuality, human rights, law, Law Related, life, lifestyle, love, marriage, parenthood, parenting, Politics, United States |
Ellen’s position is that marriage only between a man and a woman violates her inalienable or Constitutional rights or her right to pursue happiness. But this is simply not the case. Gays and Lesbians have NEVER been denied the right to marriage in America based on sexual orientation! (That I am aware of.) Any man, gay or straight, can marry any other woman gay or straight. This has always been the law and the case as long as those individuals have met the other requirements for marriage such as consent, age and not being genetically related, etc.
Just show me one instance of a man wishing to marry a woman either of whom were denied the right to marry each other because either one or both were homosexual.
Men have never been able to “marry” other men until very recently in American history, i.e. Massachusetts & California, whether they were gay or not. And women have never been able to “marry” other women until very recently in American history whether they were lesbian or not.
The issue is not that gay and lesbian Americans are being denied equal rights. On the contrary! The issue is that the gay and lesbian community is actually arguing for MORE rights or special rights based soley on sexual orientation! They want to ADD to their pre-existing, inalienable, Constitutional right to marry, the right to “marry” people of the same gender.
What if you are not gay or lesbian? Can a man now marry another man even if they are NOT gay? Why limit marriage to any two people at all? What does love got to do with it? How about three or four… (Whatever makes them happy, right? Or as long as they are committed to each other?)
This issue has absolutely nothing to do with equal rights or happiness or love. It’s really about redefining what “marriage” is. (Lots of married people are not happy by the way, so be careful what you wish for.) And rather than simply accept that marriage between one man and one woman has a unique, natural, and culturally significant purpose, the gay and lesbian community has absolutley intruded upon and attempted to down-trodden the institution of marriage itself to the point of no real meaning at all.
I’ve already explained that gays and lesbians can absolutely marry and always have been able to marry, so why domestic partnerships and civil unions don’t adequately protect this new, special right extended to same sex couples is a question they leave unanswered.
I don’t argue that people can’t be happy. I don’t argue that consenting adults don’t have the right to form relationships as they see fit to form in a free democratic republic. I don’t argue that the Bible should or should not be the government’s guide in this area. All I’m saying is that marriage means something by simple definition, which the Gay and Lesbian lobby insists on complicating.
Finally, advocates of “gay marriage” point to supposed inequities or denied “rights” in various instances of state inheritance law, healthcare proxy decision-making, and other legal doctrines where spouses are presumed to represent the best interest of the decedent or incapacitated spouse. But ALL UNMARRIED straight/heterosexual couples are going to have these very same supposed “rights” denied just as non-straight/homosexual couples in the examples mentioned. There are plenty of estate planning and beneficiary designation changes that will resolve most of these issues for unmarried couples straight or not.
No re-definition of marriage required.