Friday, April 3, 2009

Trouble in River City

As you've no doubt heard already, the Iowa Supreme court took a long lunch break, ordered that nifty drink known as the Emanating Penumbra, drank a few too many, lurched back to court and magically discovered that Iowans have the right to call their commitment to engaging in homosexual acts of depravity "marriage." I like this, from the Liberty Counsel:
(Liberty Counsel) – Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, and Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law, released the following statement today in response to news that the Iowa Supreme Court has issued an opinion imagining a “fundamental” constitutional right to “same-sex marriage”:

“Here we go again,” said Barber. “While citing the specter of ‘equal protection,’ the Iowa Supreme Court today has unanimously joined a leftist gaggle of ideologically driven judges in California, Massachusetts and Connecticut, creating, from thin air, a phantom ‘right’ to the ridiculous, oxymoronic and postmodern ‘gay’ marriage counterfeit.

“Although, not controlling here” continued Barber, “the U.S. Supreme Court long ago rejected the untenable notion that ‘equal protection’ requires two biologically incompatible persons to be permitted to ‘marry.’ Marriage, of course, by its very spiritual, historical and biological nature, requires binary compatibility. It is no more discriminatory to disallow two men from marrying each other, than it is to prohibit a man from marrying his house plant.

In Baker v. Nelson, our nation’s high court rightfully observed: “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. … Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

“Taking its solemn vow seriously in Baker,” said Barber, “the Supreme Court exercised judicial restraint; properly holding that to rule otherwise would constitute an unconstitutional exercise of ‘judicial legislation.’

“What a contrast. Today, the Iowa Supreme Court cast aside any semblance of judicial restraint doing exactly that which the U.S. Supreme Court detested. It unequivocally engaged in ‘judicial legislation,’ unconstitutionally manufacturing law from the bench. No one in his right mind would suggest that the framers of the Iowa Constitution could have ever imagined the silly and incongruous notion of ‘same sex marriage,’ much less considered it a ‘fundamental right.’
Barber goes on to suggest that Iowans won't take kindly to the notion that a handful of activist (and possibly inebriated; really, that's the kindest explanation I can think of) judges decided to declare unilaterally that everybody who ever thought marriage had something to do with two people of opposite genders marrying, producing and raising progeny, and eventually inheriting Grandpa's acres of corn was a no-account slimy bigot hater Christianist; I can only hope he's right.

What I really like is Barber's skillful dismantling of the notion that this push to legalize sodomite and lesbian relationships has anything to do with determining "constitutional" parameters for marriage. Nobody who wrote the Iowa State Constitution, nobody who wrote the United States Constitution, ever imagined that homosexual acts would be privileged someday under the marriage laws. None of our illustrious ancestors, some of whom may have occasionally winked at their knowledge of such relationships in private, ever would have contemplated a time when American society would become so suicidal, so bent on self-destruction, as to rush forward to make the whole concept and notion of civil marriage completely meaningless, an idea with no underlying reality, a word that no longer has any purpose.

The current DOMA definition of marriage is as follows: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." It's easy to see from this definition that as far as the nation is concerned, marriage has two essential qualities to it: that it involves two people, and that those two people are of opposite genders. It's a pretty simple definition.

But remove the idea of gender from marriage, and all you have left is "Marriage is a legal union...." The concept of number is, from the standpoint of postmodern people, just as "arbitrary" a concept as the concept of gender; I think traditional people could argue that number is more arbitrary than gender in defining marriage, as there are many historical examples of major civilizations that practiced polygamy, and no historical examples of major civilizations that practiced gay "marriage." (Yes, I'm aware that pro-gay marriage activists claim otherwise--and then drag out a handful of bizarre sociological aberrations which may or may not have involved sexual relationships to try to prove their point. Apparently, the word "marriage" isn't the only word they have trouble understanding, since "major civilizations" is also too elusive a concept for them to grasp.)

But if all "marriage" is is a legal union between any number of people for any purpose whatsoever, as long as it has nothing to do with procreation, gender complementarity, or forming cohesive social bonds that will be transmitted to the next generation, as long as its meaning is so nebulous and unformed that it takes judges to outline what it now is for the stupid hicks in their jurisdiction who are too hidebound and traditional to embrace the glorious new gay marriage paradigm, then why have it at all?

I have yet to hear a compelling reason for it, other than shouts of "Tax breaks!" and "Hospital visitation!" From the pro-gay marriage side, you'd think that the government's interest in marriage amounted to making sure people get to visit each other in the hospital, when one could argue that setting hospital visitation policy was the last think the government needed to be worried about (e.g., "Shall we work on the economy, Senator, or focus on foreign policy today?" "Neither! I'm not doing anything until I specify whether or not Great-Aunt Sadie has the right to enter her great-niece's labor and delivery room, or whether she has to wait in the reception area with Uncle Ted and that moron Cousin Ethelbert!" "Oh, sorry, sir; I didn't mean to distract you," etc.)

Nonetheless, the gay-rights activists are determined to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, and to redefine society in doing so. And the next word they'll redefine will be "Catholic;" in the new gay-speak "Catholic" will mean "bigot who hates gay people."

My friends, we've got trouble, right here in River City. Alas, it doesn't involve a pool hall and a slick con-artist selling band equipment to the populace; that would be comparatively easy to deal with.


sarah said...

"Catholic" is already code for "bigot". Sadly.

eulogos said...

Sarah, your comment could be understood two ways.
Because I regularly interact with people on my college alumnia list, I first heard it as saying, "Catholics are bigots," which is what it would mean if I read it there, which is how I first read it.
But then it occurred to me that you could mean that people already think and say this.
Which is true.
But some of what Red Cardigan says in this post would clearly be bigotry from the point of view of those who think of "gays" as a normal subtype of people who are discriminated against. Even if one expresses ones beliefs in much more moderated language than Red Cardigan (aka Erin) uses, the belief itself that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, is considered bigotry from that point of view.
As I have learned as the result of bitter bitter attacks from my fellow alumnae, even when I only spoke in answer to a question such as, "What, exactly, does the Catholic church teach about homosexuality."
Susan Peterson

76trombones said...

If you recall from the "Music Man," Professor Harold Hill was just using pool to get people to rally around him so he could fulfill his true goal: getting a boy's band in river city.

"River City ain't in any trouble."
"We're gonna have to create some. We must create a desperate need in your town for a boy's band."

In the same way, conservatives use gay marriage to rally people around for their true motive: being in power.

Scott W. said...

In the same way, conservatives use gay marriage to rally people around for their true motive: being in power.

Yes, but sometimes the trouble is real as is in the case of homosexual marriage. Will some cash in on resisting it? Probably. Does that mean don't resist it? Not by a longshot.