OLYMPIA, Wash. – Thousands of people gathered outside the Temple of Justice in Olympia to demonstrate for traditional marriage as the Washington Supreme Court heard arguments in a gay marriage case Tuesday afternoon.
Interesting choice of perspective in that description, don’t you think? “What do we want? Traditional Marriage! When do we want it? Now!” Don’t you usually demonstrate for change or protest? For example, you demonstrate the US War in Iraq, because you want the US to change its policy and you’re protesting the current policy. But this frame, “we’re not anti-gay, we’re pro-traditional”, is as false and transparent as “we’re not anti-woman, we’re pro-life”.
The way that sentence is framed makes it seem as if the supporters of traditional marriage are fighting against the potential loss of traditional marriage rights. How is it that civil recognition of homosexual marriage is going to prevent heterosexual couples from marrying or reduce the rights of already-married heterosexuals?
The lawsuits contend that the law denies homosexuals access to family courts, community property laws, parental rights and the ability to make health care decisions for each other.
“I believe there’s over 400 different state rights and over 1,100 federal rights that we’re denied by the fact that we can’t be married,” said Seattle resident Johanna Bender.
“The privilege of civil marriage and the various privileges legally conferred by that status are not being made equally available to all citizens,” King County Superior Court Judge William Downing said last August as he ruled in favor of same-sex marriage rights.
And no one is hoping for legislation that requires churches to hold gay marriages. No one is going to force you to approve of gay marriages. All we’re saying is that government should treat all people equally. What’s the problem with that?
Lawyers for the state argued that same-sex unions are not a fundamental right. They said the state recognizes marriage as a means for procreation and extends privileges to married couples to help create a stable environment for children.
Oh, yeah, I forgot about that. Marriage is all about children. Won’t anyone think of the children?
Let’s put this misconception to rest: the state recognizes marriage as a civil contract of mutual support between two people. People who do not or can not procreate are allowed to marry, and people who do or can procreate are not required to marry. Marriage evolved as a property contract regarding the exchange of chattel (a woman, or in the good ol’ days, women) from a father to a husband.
Furthermore, it is a civil right. From FindLaw:
In 1978, the United States Supreme Court declared marriage to be “of fundamental importance to all individuals” (Zablocki v. Redhail). The court described marriage as “one of the ‘basic civil rights of man'” and “the most important relation in life.” The court also noted that “the right to marry is part of the fundamental ‘right to privacy'” in the U.S. Constitution. [emphasis mine]
Nothing I could find said anything about “the children”.
So what drives these defenders of traditional marriage to demonstrate outside the courthouse?
“You can basically redefine marriage until it has no meaning at all. Which will add a lot more confusion to a young person,” said Aaron Haskins, Community Development & Renewal.
Ah, the shibboleth of “redefining marriage”. I wonder how he felt about the redefining of marriage to mean “one man and only one woman”? The Bible is chock full o’ polygamy, after all. Who were these “activist judges” (speaking of shibboleths) who redefined marriage against God’s holy will?
Or what about the recent redefinition of marriage as “one man and one woman of any race or color“? Many opponents of interracial marriage once argued that anti-miscegenation laws existed to protect the children. Won’t anyone think of the children?
See, Aaron, laws get redefined all the time as a society evolves and becomes more enlightened. You can cling to your opinion of a holy sacred marriage ordained and blessed by God in your church; that’s fine. But we’re talking about civil law, which is not governed by the Ten Commandments, it is governed by the Ten Amendments (a.k.a. The Bill of Rights), first among those requiring (in part) that government shall not respect an establishment of religion. Quit conflating religious marriage with civil marriage, will ya?
Finally, that sentence about “confusing young people” says it all. In their mind, people aren’t born gay, they are merely confused. They are led astray by a wicked secular culture that tells them that people are born gay. They are enticed into a “sodomite” lifestyle by TV shows and permissive attitudes that allow gays to “flaunt” their sexuality and constantly “put it in our faces”. So if government declares that same-sex marriage is legal, it will confer upon homosexuality an official recognition of validity, further “confusing” the young people. That’s why the FEBACs™ (Fundamentalist Evangelical Born-Again Christians) oppose gay marriage; it erodes their position that gay is “wrong” not merely “different”. And if that is eroded, then perhaps their position that other beliefs are “wrong” and not merely “different” (see God Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It!) erode as well.
