I noted a post the other day on Facebook, presumably posted in the support of homosexual “marriage”. The gist of the post was that society isn’t negatively affected when “rights” are granted to homosexuals in the matter… the right to marry… as we in the rest of society have always had. This is incorrect, of course… but to explain WHY it’s wrong, is going to need some serious detail. Here’s a start;
Let’s lay down a few basics, from a post of a few years ago:
Here it is; Rights are a cultural construct, and meaningless outside that construct. As I said in the article linked above: Rights are not universal.
When Jefferson wrote that “WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT” he was not speaking a universal truth at all. The operative word in that phrase is “WE”.
Rather than talking about a universal point of view, a universal truth, if you will, he was instead talking about the point of view of WE the new American culture. With this angle, many of the long-held myths about rights tend to disappear.
Consider; if it was in fact a universal truth that all men were created equal, it wouldn’t have been such a radical idea, for the time, much less then to now. Last I checked, it is quite true that a vast majority still do not consider these as any kind of truth, universal or otherwise; they consider them to be anything BUT self-evident. Royalty still exists, as do class structures, and slavery, as well.
…
Once the culture is allowed to fall either to the law, (or, in the case of anarchy, the lawless) ….even in an attempt to impose rights where they do not exist, what happens to real rights, which are a cultural concept?
They fail.
Make no mistake, people… governments that try to over-rule the culture which gave them life, have always and forever in history, failed. A fairly recent example is the former Soviet Union.
That established, let’s look closer at the cultural angle.
Right off the bat, and regardless of your take on the Judeo-Chirtsian ethic, and it’s Biblical basis, it seems fairly clear that marriage, as such, existed as at least a cultural concept, from ancient times. Additionally, secular laws were written to parallel the already- established traditional marriage, as the proper purpose of government dictates, to accommodate in a legal sense what already existed within the culture that the government was properly supporting.
As to that, let us consider the words of George Wasington, who as General of the colonial army, when advised of there being a homosexual in his ranks…
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose (“George…,” underline in orig., emp. added).
(I have the images of the original documents on file, if you have the need)
Washington saw “sodomy” (the 18th-century word for homosexual relations) “with Abhorrence and Detestation.”
I’ll bet you didn’t know that homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all… I say again, ALL of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states.
Most had quite severe penalties were quite severe, including death—in New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina Even Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect. One wonders why so many homosexuals hold him so dear, and why the Democrat Party, so wrapped up as they are with the homosexual lobby, still considers him a party icon. He wrote the Constitution. Do you suppose he’d write a law that ran directly afoul of it? I don’t.
The position of the culture as a whole is fairly clear, insofar as revolutionary times, and the intention of the founders. As to the cultue’s current position on the matter, consider thatevery time the subject is brought to a vote the response is invariably overwhelmingly negative. Those states which have legalized homosexual “marriage” have invariably done so without the benefit of a referendum, knowing full well it would never pass.
The desire, apparently is to change the culture byforce of government, in turn by beating the “equal rights” drum. The problem here, however, is a bit more complex than that. The law, as such, IS in fact equal in it’s application. Men can marry any female that will have them. No discrimination involved.
Understand the line being drawn here; The Constitution was written with an eye toward the founders desire of equal rights before the law and equal rights of the individual in matters pertaining to and involving government. Not society, not the culture. Government, and government alone.The culture, for its part, as well as the individuals within it, are free agents, and unrestricted in in matters of the culture, and it’s dictates.
I submit that while it’s true that there are laws on the books pertaining to marriage, these are, as I’ve said, a governmental tool to deal with what already exists in the culture. In other words, this wasn’t driven by government, but by culture.
The solution being sought by the social left in this matter is exactly the kind of thing to be expected from a group of people who hold government the highest entity, rather than the culture. Those seeking laws enabling homosexuals to marry, are seeking to change society with the power of government. And that, dear reader, goes well outside the purview of our government, at whatever level. At least, if we take the intentions of the founders seriously.
If we don’t, then prepare for the consequences of saying it’s the government that grants rights… because that’s what they want to happen here.