Well, the gay marriage issue is in the news again, and, the morality ignoramuses are at it again, using solely emotional arguments and not reason. I can’t believe we are still having these discussions in the 21st Century. Some people are stuck in the 11th Century, and believe that the armed power of the State should be used to enforce a particular moral view on others.
First, let me get this out of the way. I personally believe that opposite-sex marriage should be encouraged in society. I happen to be in the category of cultural conservatism, and also believe that parents should discourage their teenage kids from becoming sexually active at too young an age, that schools should not be involved in condoms distribution nor any sex education at all — that’s for families. I actually believe in monogamy and that extra-marital sex is not healthy, and if you want sex outside of your marriage, get a divorce.
I can’t believe some of the things I heard Michael Savage saying on his show last night, given how intelligent, educated and sophisticated he is in his views (when he’s not yelling and screaming, of course). Savage stated that homosexual marriage “mocks real marriage.” He was referring to opposite-sex marriage as a “time-honored” “sacred institution,” which he said the State was “obligated to protect.”
No, the State is not obligated to protect “sacred institutions,” because sacred institutions are subjective. The State is obligated to protect Liberty. That was the intent behind the American Founders’ creating government. (Well intended, but their creation was flawed.) Savage’s views are largely collectivist in nature, as he apparently believes that a community has a right to use the power of the State to force a majority’s views onto the individual. Savage was speaking in praise of the ballot box. The Founders had the opposite view: the State is intended to be there to protect the individual from the majority (which is illogical, and doesn’t work).
The issue here is a matter of contracts. The marital contract is a contract in which certain parties agree on terms and sign the contract. It is the business of those parties involved — it is no one else’s business. It is none of the neighbors’ business, none of the State’s business. The terms of the contract between mutually consenting and agreeable parties are none of anyone else’s business. In America, people have a right to go about their lives and be left alone. That’s the American way.
So, what are you going to do if some homosexuals write up a contract and sign their names to it, committing themselves to a life-long marriage, even though the State has come up with a law that forbids them to do that? Throw them in jail? THAT’s immoral! Talk about morality! Savage was also bringing up the Bible as part of his solely emotional arguments. I believe that God agrees with the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Individuals have a right to live their lives and be free of intrusions by others especially the armed State, as long as individuals themselves are not intrusive on others.
Unfortunately, some people believe that, while homosexuals being married and living their lives peacefully and while not being intrusive on any other actual people, their private relationship is intrusive on the “institution of marriage,” as Savage suggests. The Declaration doesn’t mention that social institutions such as marriage have a right to be free from “intrusions,” only human beings have those rights. These arguments that treat social concepts as actual living beings and with rights are just irrational arguments, based solely on emotion.
Incidentally, a similar emotional argument is being made in opposition to the so-called mosque proposed for New York City. Many people opposed are saying that such a center would “offend” survivors and family members of 9/11 victims, and “hurt their feelings.” I feel for the victims and families who would be upset about something like the proposed mosque, but there have been plenty of times in America in which the armed power of the State was used to stop certain projects from being built on private property because neighbors were offended. But the neighbors don’t own the property — that’s the bottom line. People who want to prevent something from going up in a certain area would really have to put their funds together and buy the property. That’s the American way.