Wednesday, March 27, 2013

On squaring circles and the loss of liberty

From a very thoughtful essay (h-t Turk):
 It is those who oppose same-sex marriage who are the true champions of liberty. Indeed, if gay “marriage” is ever legalized, it is likely to result in unprecedented restrictions on freedom of speech and even thought.
Look at Canada, for instance. Changing the dictionary meant that the government deprives Christians of the right to say what they believe without official sanction.

That article quotes from another which observes that there is no law against anyone calling any relationship he has "marriage," nor against any religious institution performing a ceremony for such persons/animals/things and calling it a "marriage" ceremony. Here is what is at issue:
What the law in most states currently does not do, however, is force third parties—individuals, businesses, institutions, and so on—to recognize these ‘marriages’ and treat them as if they were exactly the same as traditional marriages. Nor does it forbid anyone to do so.
There you go.

Though I'd not yet read either essay, this is the point I was making yesterday, in what became one of my most-retweeted Tweets:

No man will ever be able to marry another man, nor will any woman be able to marry another woman, and they know it. There is no act of Congress nor any despotic tyrant on earth that will square that circle.

What this is really about bringing the power of government to force others to say "Yep, if you say so, that circle is a square," and sanctioning anyone who says and lives and conducts business otherwise.

Here's one other point which I've often made:
The problem with this position is that it again assumes the myth that homosexuals are not allowed to marry. The reality is that no one is stopping homosexuals from getting married, since they are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that they do not want to do this is no more relevant to the question than whether the pope wants to marry. Just as it would be absurd to change the definition of marriage to include celibacy so that the Pope can have “equal access” to the institution, so it is absurd to change the definition of marriage so that homosexuals can begin to want access to it.
Finally, at no extra charge, a little exchange between Il Presidente and your faithful correspondent:


Si Hollett said...

In the UK, the legislation going through at the moment, they couldn't work out what consummation or adultery was for same-sex couples, so there will be two different definitions of 'marriage', depending on whether there's one or two genders in the partnership.

When I raised this on a secular forum after lots of "who wouldn't be against equality" comments, no one for the bill cared that it did nothing.

When pushed as to why they didn't care, those for it said it was about denying intolerant, anti-diversity bigots the get out clause of 'civil partnerships aren't marriage' (the case law says they can't do that to deny service to someone, other than a religious marriage ceremony, but anyway).

Someone else posted the definition of bigot "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." in response to someone talking about denying a language and that went woosh over their heads. My comment about the bill being purely about hating others and suppressing 'diversity' (which now means uniformity on the issues of GLBTXQDZ - my university's diversity fair was LGBTsoc putting on a couple of things, including a guy from Stonewall taking questions on gay marriage and religion - no debate, just one view being put forward) were met with 'you can't have anti-diversity views in a diverse society'. They didn't get irony.

Apparently 'no one is forcing anyone to do anything', when those who don't hold the state-imposed orthodoxy will be forced by law to keep silent and even perform ceremonies against their will.

Apparently we should 'live and let live' - when I say that that works both ways and seeking to deny a view language isn't live and let live, I always get the answer back 'well we shouldn't let those views exist'.

I wouldn't mind so much if the pro- side were more honest that what they are proposing, if it was the other way around, they would be screaming 'hate crime'.

In other words, this article is spot on.

JG said...

What I find revealing is that SSM proponents are limiting their proponing strictly to relationships between 2 adults. Why aren't they championing for polygamists as well? They are also "hurt" by current marriage laws with regards to inheritance and parental rights, especially the women. If they want true "marriage equality," why not marriage equality for everyone? It's inconsistent.

DJP said...

Right, Jaci. You prompted me to add an earlier exchange at the end of the post.

Kerry James Allen said...

A pastor friend of mine shocked me the other day when he said he told his son (the father of his three grandchildren) that he (his son) was raising future martyrs.

I hadn't thought of it that way before but I suppose we had better start real soon. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.

Anonymous said...

Just heard an interesting comment on the recording before SCOTUS reguarding DOMA. It is not that the federal govt. cannot define a term, it defined child. Huh.

Strong Tower said...

I'm wondering... can there be domestic abuse charges filed in a SMM(sadomasochisticmawage)?

RT said...

You are right of course that neither individuals nor government can re-define that which God has already established; or rather that such re-definitions are without meaning in God's economy. It is also perfectly clear that (aside from an occasional dabbling in polygamy) God appears to regard marriage as being between one man and one woman. Any other relationship, whether recognized by government or not, is simply not marriage. The problems begin mounting however, when government, as it is wont to do, starts attaching rights and privileges to relationships - whether called "marriage" or "civil union" or what you will, because then everyone wants to get in on the act and get his or her (or his or his for that matter) fair share of the government's largesse. The awkward thing is that our constitution seems to require that if we give out rights and privileges then we need to give them out "fairly" (whatever that means) and we can't, as individuals, discriminate even in deference to our own consciences. If, for example, you are a business owner and you take Matthew 5:32 seriously you are just as much under the government's scrutiny for refusing family health insurance in that case as you would be for refusing it to the "spouse" of a same-sex relationship. Either way, the government has chosen to call something "marriage" that you believe is either adultery or perversion and so you provide the health insurance or you close your doors. Really it is the unholy alliance between government and the Church in the so-called "defense" of marriage that has caused the problem in the first place. Marriage is a divine institution and belongs in the Church. The state should neither define nor defend marriage, whether as a union between a man and a woman or a man and a wombat. Asking the state to defend the institution of marriage is to throw oneself into the arms of the devil in fear, evidently, that God is incapable of defending Himself and His own institutions.

jmb said...

You're right, of course. And the first essay you linked to is probably the best I've read on the subject.

Anonymous said...

Things like no-fault divorce laws redefined marriage well before the gays ever came along. And birth control, something that the mainstream church until recently was vehemently against, has meant that children are not necessarily seen as a byproduct of marriage, but rather something you plan out. If anything we should be asking why gay "marriage" hadn't established itself much earlier, and how long it will take for polygamy to become legal.