Because I Love Him – That’s Why

I could be wrong, but I think this is the sole case of the United States of America codifying an emotion. The Supreme Court decision on gay marriage reads like a romance novel with talk of love, commitment and intimacy.

Civil marriage was never created because two people loved each other and wished to make a commitment that had legal ramifications and consequences. Holy Matrimony under the church was and is sufficient as a recognizable commitment between two people who wish to live together as man and wife. In the church’s view, the state can neither add nor detract a thing from marriage. And it is STILL TRUE in the eyes of the church.

Civil marriage, like every other legal relationship, was created to protect the individuals from a breach of contract, and I DON’T mean to prevent one party from dumping the other for a newer, sexier version (although these kinds provisions did find their way into law, it was NOT for the benefit of the feelings of the offended party). The state couldn’t actually care less these days who you do, or how you do it. No, the state only cares about such things as it affects the children emanating from this relationship. THAT is why civil marriage exists in the first place.

If you hadn’t noticed it before now, men are animals. Yes, women are too, to some extent, but for purposes of THIS argument, men abandon their progeny in FAAAARR greater numbers than do women. This is true even in the animal kingdom, unless there is some compelling reason not to do so. Civil marriage provides that motivation, and legally obligates the parents to take care of the fruit of their loins.

That’s it. That is the only reason for civil marriage to exist. Unless it is theoretically possible to create children out of a relationship, there is no need whatsoever for state sponsored marriage. Every other “benefit” of marriage is available to two individuals through other legal means – tax breaks, hospital visitation (this was always a stupid argument by the way and never true), inheritance, recinding or changing laws – anything. Why change the definition of marriage to do it? The Supreme Court used an ax to do what required a scalpel and a few stitches.

Gay activists successfully turned this debate into a question of LOVE, and that was NEVER the question.

Have you ever seen a civil marriage certificate that asked the participants to attest to their love for each other? No, you have not. It is NOT a requirement of marriage, so why would the state sanction gay marriage because two people love each other, then fail to even mention it in law?

It is more symbolism over substance.

In my opinion, what gay activists are REALLY after is acceptance. They want to be like real married people. They want to feel normal. Even if you have to be forced to say it.

But like a bully to whom the Supremes gave their lunch money, he’ll be back. With more wives to accept. With his child bride, his animal spouse, whatever.

It’s not over. It’s FAR from over.

Comments are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner