Gay "marriage": a victory for decentralization?

I've been spending quite a bit of time lately over at the Tenth Amendment Center where they're doing a good job of keeping up with all of the tenth amendment resolutions, and other state enactments and citizen movements as they're happening.

Just a few days ago New Hampshire became the sixth state in the union to authorize gay "marriage." In praise of this radical move by the New Hampshire legislature, Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center writes that,

Whether you support this particular issue or not, I think people across the political spectrum can see this as a victory for decentralization. The 10th Amendment makes it quite clear that the most important social issues should be handled on a state level, or by the people themselves.

Really? I'm not going to dispute that the tenth amendment reserves to the states and to the people the great residual of political powers, obviously, it being a central theme of this blog the principle of Balanced Constitutional Government. But exactly how is this instance some prime example of a "victory for decentralization?" And if it is an example of such a victory, isn't the fact that 34 or 35 other states in this union which have explicitly denied homosexual "marriage" is the more important and more decisive victory ... for decentralization?

I suppose I understand the impulse to applaud movements which seem to favor the decentralization of political powers consistent with the constitution, particularly in an era in which centralization of political powers is not only commonplace, but one of the ruling principles of our degenerating society. On the other hand, something so obviously self-destructive to society as undermining its foundational institution hardly seems to me to be especially deserving of praise and adulation, particularly when the exact same principle one is supposedly applauding has been applied in six times the number of states, albeit with diametrically opposing results.

I won't say that Boldin has some kind of underlying homosexual advocacy agenda here, because we know that people are often on the wrong side of an issue for all the right reasons, and vice versa. But it seems rather odd to me, nonetheless, to praise this radical, self-destructive movement by the state of New Hampshire while neglecting to mention the movement amongst the states to protect the institution of marriage. But maybe it was just an error of omission.

Y'know, had the New Hampshire legislature voted the other way, not only would it be able to claim a victory for decentralization, but it would have also retained its dignity. As it is, the state is apparently ruled by sodomites.

Read More

Bob Struble on homosexual "marriage" and Judicial Usurpation

Robert Struble is the author of the interactive book Treatise on Twelve Lights. Mr. Struble and I have had, since I first learned of his book a couple of years ago, several short email discussions, interrupted by long pauses in our communications, concerning his proposals for restoring the republic. A few days ago Mr. Struble interrupted the latest long pause in our communications sending me an email in which he asks that I take a look at his article concerning the recent CA Supreme Court ruling on homosexual marriage, and to "pass it on" if I am so inclined. Well, I am so inclined, so I excerpt a few passages from the article here:

Mr. Struble Writes:

In California the state Supreme Court has radically undermined a key support of public morality, marriage between man and woman. By a 4-3 vote, in a decree issued on the Ides of May, 2008, the judicial branch welded base metal into a crucial buttress of American culture. Together with a similar measure imposed by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, this dual challenge to our marriage laws is more dangerous and menacing by far than the temporary success in introducing harems into 19th century Utah.

This new adventure in judicial activism creates not just a moral calamity, but also a constitutional crisis in that it undermines the rule of law. I'm especially struck at how such legislation from the bench contradicts John Adams' famous definition of a republic as "a government of laws, not men." If four men, or rather two men and two women, can nullify established law and substitute their own preferences, then we no longer have a republic of laws. In his dissent to the ruling (pp. 1, 5-6 [127ff], concurred in by Justice Ming Chin), Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that the decision “violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error.” Continued Justice Baxter:

… a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

In November, hopefully, the voters of California will get a chance to reverse “this exercise in legal jujitsu.” (Baxter, p. 7) If successful this effort would restore the definition of marriage in California law, as enacted by the Legislature in 1977. Almost a quarter century later, in the year 2000, California’s voters passed proposition 22 by the margin of 61-39%. Both forms of legislating, via the people and through the state legislature, had defined marriage as limited to unions between a man and a woman.

This latest case of amending the constitution by adjudication makes clear that the neo-pagan elites are not willing to let the American people have their way on basic social/moral issues. It is not us, the American citizens, but rather our cultural commissars who intend to decide such questions. Apparently their presiding paradigm is "democracy be damned if it gets in the way" of the social-engineering projects of their postmodernist revolution. Over 4.6 million voters approved Proposition 22, or 1.15 million times the number of oligarchs (four) who imposed same-sex marriage on the state. So much for “the consent of the governed” proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.

The California case is more threatening to America’s moral integrity than the phenomenon in Massachusetts, in that residency is required to marry in the Bay State, but people from anywhere can marry in California. The newlyweds could then sue back in their home state to have their same-sex “marriages” validated under the full faith and credit clause.

What strikes me particularly is Justice Baxter's dissenting remarks excerpted above. I wrote about this fundamental change in the definition and conditions of marriage and thus to the marriage contract a few days ago in an entry at this blog. The term "marriage" has been redefined by this rogue court as a "long-term" union between "consenting adults". Thus the normal meaning of marriage as a binding contract between a man and a woman in which they pledge to each other (exclusive to all others) mutual affection and support, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in heath, till death parts them is disastrously undone by the court's introduction of new terms in the marriage contract which undermine and contradict the very basis on which the court depends for the validity of its articulation of the inestimable glories of the marriage institution. Thus apparently the court believes it can fundamentally alter (destroy) the meaning of the term marriage to admit homosexuals without destroying the glories, of which it writes in its opinion, of the marriage institution. I therefore declare this court to be collectively insane.

But anyway, with respect to Mr. Struble's book, I thought that some of you might want to check it out. If you're so inclined, you may connect to the ToTL main page via the link to Struble's article which I've provided above.

Read More

Marriage cont.

In connection with the discussion on homosexual "marriage," John Savage turned me on to this article posted at TakiMag. The main objective of the writer may be summed up in his concluding paragraph. He writes:

“Traditionalists” have it all backwards. Marriage isn’t in decline; it has instead been glorified beyond all recognition. The only way back to traditional marriage may be to allow same-sex marriage without protest. Let marriage first be deflated. Then perhaps it can be restored.

The rest of the article goes about to establish the author's foregoing assertions. As evidence that the institution of marriage is overly exalted in modern society, Mr. Bramwell quotes from the CA Supreme Court's (a reliable source for the general opinion of moderns, I'm sure) infamous opinion in the recent homosexual marriage case. In its opinion the court declared that marriage is:

[T]he most socially productive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a lifetime. The ability of an individual to join in a committed, long-term, officially recognized family relationship with the person of his or her choice is often of crucial significance to the individual’s happiness and well-being. The legal commitment to long-term mutual emotional and economic support that is an integral part of an officially recognized marriage relationship provides an individual with the ability to invest in and rely upon a loving relationship with another adult in a way that may be crucial to the individual’s development as a person and achievement of his or her full potential.

First of all, I'd personally like to know on what evidence exactly the Court is relying for its dogmatic, overly enthusiastic statements on marriage? One must assume, given that homosexual "marriage" was, before this ruling, illegal and non-existant, that the court is basing its exalted view of the marriage institution entirely on heterosexual examples, and imputing those examples to homosexuals, as if homosexuals have the same capacity as heterosexuals to engage in successful marriages. Talk about serving up a crock full of equality b.s.!

Beyond that, look at the way the Court subtly yet significantly redefines marriage to be just another all-inclusive institution. Marriage, according to the court, is no longer a "lifelong" commitment, but merely a "long-term" commitment. Of course the court gives us no indication of what it means by the term "long-term," so I assume it could mean any "extended" period of time. Do I smell a rat here?; is someone purposely being liberal with its ambiguity? What is self-evident and non-ambiguous about the term, however, is what the term does not mean -- a lifelong commitment. I suggest to you that the court knows full well that homosexuals are uniquely incapable of upholding the terms of traditional marriage, and therefore, as an advocate of homosexual "marriage", found it incumbent upon itself to destroy yet another foundational principle of marriage for the sake of its favored group.

So, is Mr. Bramwell correct in his assertion that Tradionalists have it all wrong; that we err in defending the exaltation and exclusivity of marriage? Is he right in saying that marriage has been "glorified beyond all recognition?" Well, if you want to call the court's written expression of its opinion a glorification of the sacred institution of marriage, then I suppose his opinion carrys some weight with you. But I for one do not view the court's opinion as he does. Yes; the court uses glowing language in its pronouncements on the glories of the marriage institution, but I submit to you that the more important issue in the court's decision is its overthrow of a concept which has always attended any traditional idea of marriage; that the court's exalted expressions on the institution of marriage are at once rendered meaningless by its destruction of a principle without which the glories of marriage could never have been fully realized or written about.

One indication that marriage is indeed in a state of decline, is that the court succeeded in inserting, in the midst of all its flowery language, a fundamental change in the conditions of marriage from lifelong commitment to "long-term" commitment and that this fundamental change evidently escaped Bramwell's keen sense of the low state that is the defining mark of traditional marriage.

Read More

Is childless Marriage beneficial to society?

(Note: In connection with this post, please read Lawrence Auster's entry on the extreme radicalism of homosexual marriage. Scroll down and read Dana W.'s remarks and LA's reply to Dana on no-fault divorce, an issue I thought about adding to this entry but ultimately decided against.)

MARRIAGE, n. The act of uniting a man and a woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and a woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.(emphasis mine)

(Definition taken from Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language)

Contrast Webster's definition with an opinion expressed at Savage's blog on the purpose of marriage and why government benefits related to marriage should be strictly tied to having children. (Admittedly, when you start talking about government benefits passed out to folks who meet certain government-established criteria, I start to get a little nervous. As they say, "there ain't nothin' free," so one has to decide whether the rewards outweigh the costs. I think generally they don't when it comes to government favors.)

My parenthetical remarks aside, though, do you think that government benefits related to marriage should be reserved only to those married (husband and wife, male and female, man and woman) couples who have offspring; that government benefits for married couples should be tied to having children? That seems to be the consensus of some at BNWW and elsewhere. John quotes commenter Robert Hume from the Inductivist who writes in favor of this view:

The main purpose of marriage in modern times is as a support system for children. The state grants benefits to married folk in order to help raise children well.

It used to be that all married people had children, so the benefits were not mis-allocated. But now many heterosexual couples do not have children, so they reap benefits to which they are not entitled.

So homosexuals have noted that there were benefits that they could not get that heterosexuals could get … without carrying the responsibility of caring for children.

In this case homosexuals have a good “equal protection” argument.

The solution is to modify the law to tie marriage benefits to having children, not to being married.

The presumption is that society reaps little or no benefits from the institution of marriage except those which are directly related to the having and raising of children, and therefore, since society derives no appreciable benefits from the institution of marriage aside from the production of offspring, and since homosexuals can't have children which are a product of both partners, all government favors related to marriage must be changed to apply strictly to marital reproduction. So you've essentially killed two birds with one stone in Hume's opinion; you've stopped the mis-allocation of government marriage benefits to people who are not entitled to them (childless couples), and you've prevented by the same stroke homosexual marriages.

I simply have to disagree with this. Marriage between a man and a woman is beneficial to society in precisely the ways that Webster lays forth in his definition of the term -- it helps to prevent the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, and promotes domestic happiness. So, while I'm not saying that government benefits related to marriage should be equal across the board (unless they're equally zero), I am saying that marriage between men and women is beneficial to society apart from having children. And if society is going to reward people for their particular contribution to the general welfare and encourage its continuance, it ought to reward childless married couples for theirs.

Read More

Some people just have to be controlled

And over at Mike's personal blog, he laments that the city of Chicago is such a permissive city that it allows homosexual encounters to occur in public places where decent people retreat to pursue decent interests such as bird watching.

Now I ask, what kind of a moral ingrate is it that either engages in or defends the practice of sexual interludes in public and in broad daylight? Moreover, what kind of a society is it that permits that kind of behavior in a public place, in broad daylight?

Such activities simply have no place in a civilized society. Which makes me question at times how civilized our society really is.

Read More

Coming soon to a city or town near you

Recently Lawrence Auster wrote to me the following: "To think of people doing this in workplace restrooms or college dorm restrooms...is simply appalling." "No honest person can say that such customs are conformable with America and with any Western society."

Mr. Auster was of course speaking of Muslims and their foot washing customs. But his words apply just as well to the Folsom Street Degenerates.

I would say that no honest person can say that such things belong in the streets and public places of America. It's bad enough that people act like this in the privacy of their own homes. It's worse that our society tolerates this kind of behavior on open display in our public markets. But that's the price of leftist multicultist non-discriminationism.

And please, don't come in here trying to argue that "this is San Francisco and blah, blah, blah." Look, the nearest town to me with any population at all (about 20,000 people) recently held its first annual "gay pride" get-together at the city park. In the same town the Lowes store has a "Men's/unisex" bathroom, and etc. Fifteen years ago I was saying that this was going to happen if we didn't work up the courage and determination to stop it. And virtually everyone I engaged on the problem resisted it saying that rural America was isolated from that influence; from its influence on the public schools and so on and so forth.

What have you unbelievers to say now? Continuing on pace, what do you think your town will be tolerating fifteen years from today? Can you honestly look yourselves in the eye and say that your local homosexual contingent is going to be satified with holding "orderly" gay pride festivals in such relatively obscure places such as your local public parks? Bull! If that's what you believe about homosexuality; that there's any "moderation" inherent to the lifestyle, then I would have to say that you're willingly ignorant at best. They won't be satisfied until they're marching down your streets and neighborhoods putting on public display their deviant abjectly immoral behaviorisms. Open your eyes!

(Warnings are provided before you get to the actual images.)

End of initial post.

Read More

The extent to which homosexuals will go to push their agenda knows no bounds;

The extent to which liberalism will go to push its non-discrimination policies knows no bounds. And that's the reason both have to be stopped.

Case in point? Two same-sex divorce cases filed in States which do not recognize same-sex marriages; Oklahoma, and Rhode Island. You may read the story here.

When there are no limits to what a group will do to achieve its objectives, and there are no limits to what an ideology will do to help it achieve its objectives, and there's no opposing force strong enough to resist either in the advancement of their pursuits, then the society which made the rise of them both to positions of normality and prominance possible must collapse on itself if it doesn't impose restrictions on these destructive practices.

End of initial post.

Read More

Welcome Back!, and a good question

John Savage over at Brave New World Watch is back from his short, but I'm sure needed vacation, and it seems to me he hasn't missed a step in the interim. As an example of what I mean, check out this entry.

John writes:

"I'd like to ask the question: "Does it ever benefit us to claim that liberals are being hypocritical if they don't want to destroy every sexual taboo?" For example, even liberals are often viscerally grossed out by incest. Some right-leaning pundits have criticized them for not taking their position to the logical extreme and calling for an end to laws against incest. But is that a smart way for traditionalists to talk?"

And here is one way in which I would answer it:...

Perhaps some of you are aware of the recent contentious incident between a traditional church in Dallas, Tx., and the homosexual community in the area? I read the story in the Dallas Morning News, and what happened according to the story was basically this:

The church in question volunteered its facitities and its services, at no cost to the family, to host the funeral of a church member's deceased brother. The church agreed to the family's putting together of a multi-media slide show depicting the deceased's life with the understanding that church officials would view the slide-show before approving it. The issue came about in this viewing where the family had inserted photos highlighting the deceased's homosexual behavior and lifestyle. Concerns were raised with the nature of the material and brought before the family, but the family would not agree to have any of it edited. No acceptable terms could be reached, and the church reneged on its promise. But what I'm getting at here is the goofy way in which the church's spokesperson handled the questions coming from the media. He said something to the effect of:

"What if the church were to volunteer its services to host the funeral of a murderer? Would it be required of us, or would it make any sense for us to allow depictions of that aspect of the person's life to be shown in our sanctuary?"

Obviously this is a ridiculous comparison to make. And all it accomplishes is to bring into question the credibility of the church and its reasoning, or its ability to take a reasonable position on anything. I mean, this person is its spokesperson, right? You can imagine how the homosexual community in the area reacted to this explanation of the church's position. You can imagine how liberals would react to this; not very favorably.

But here's the deal. The spokesperson from the church could have strengthened the church's position and its credibility immeasurably by simply responding to the media's questions in a way that people can understand and relate. For example, he could have said something like this: "What if a homosexual church in Dallas (of which I'm sure there are several) agreed to host the funeral of the straight brother of a member of that church? Would the church allow to be shown in their sanctuary depictions and images of the deceased working to inhibit the progress of the homosexual agenda in the Dallas area? Would the church leadership not reject such material based on what it perceived to be hostility toward homosexuals of which the congregation in question is made up? Furthermore, why would the family expect it to? Why would the straight community expect it to? Is any organization bound to honor a commitment to another party when certain pre-established and known boundaries have been crossed and no acceptable compromise can be reached?"

If you're going to accuse someone from another perspective of being hypocritical, you need to be able to show examples of their hypocracy. Otherwise, don't make the accusation to begin with if you're not able to back it up.

Read More