Wednesday, May 6, 2009

State-Sodomy Marriage

As you've no doubt heard already, Maine and New Hampshire were neck and neck to see which state could be the first to solidify their eventual self-annihilation; Maine has taken the lead, but because of that state's referendum process New Hampshire may end up allowing a version of "marriage" which is really nothing but state-sanctioned sodomy between biologically incompatible people who don't produce new citizens long before Maine actually issues its first state-sodomy marriage license, or SSM license:

Maine and New Hampshire took steps toward the approval of gay marriage today, bringing to five the number of New England states that have moved to legalize marriage between same-sex couples in the past five years.

Governor John E. Baldacci of Maine became the first governor in the country to sign a gay marriage bill into law without being spurred to action by a court decision. In New Hampshire, legislators took the last of several votes approving a gay marriage law. Governor John Lynch, a Democrat like Baldacci, will have five days to veto the bill, sign it, or let it become law without his signature.

The Maine law has not yet taken effect, and will face a steep hurdle before any weddings are held. Conservative groups have pledged to bring the measure to a statewide vote, and are expected to collect 55,000 signatures in the next three months to put the new law on the ballot in November.

Around the country, polls show a majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage, five years after Massachusetts became the first state to legalize it. But the signing ceremony at the State House in Augusta capped weeks of rapid progress for proponents in New England. Vermont approved gay marriage last month; Connecticut established the practice last fall after a court battle. Other recent decisions around the country have added to a sense of renewed momentum, in the wake of a ban on same sex marriage enacted last November by voters in California. Last month, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, and the city council in the District of Columbia voted this week to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

It would seem that all of New England is in this race to plot their own demise and schedule their increasing irrelevance; those of us in flyover country should just start referring to the East Coast as "Sodomyland" and be done with it.

There is no social benefit gained from granting state recognition of relationships based on sodomy or other dubious and non-procreative sex acts--and by this, I mean acts which by their nature can never produce another human being, not instances of the procreative act which are only unlikely to produce a child because of the couple's age or health condition. Age and infertility interfere with the tendency of sexual intercourse to bring new life into being; same-sex sex acts are not in the same category as the procreative act, and can no more produce babies than a dog can produce puppies by getting familiar with a fire hydrant. And granting state recognition to relationships centered around acts which by definition are non-productive makes no sense--why should the state care who you are exchanging non-productive sexual favors with? Why should you get tax breaks or inheritance rights as a "partnership of individuals" who will never find themselves, as the natural and expected result of the relationship, caring for children who are equally the biological children of you both?

State-sodomy marriage supporters, or SSM supporters, like to say that they "have children" too. They do not "have children." They may sometimes adopt them (in which case the adoption documents spell out the legal rights--no marriage necessary!) and they may sometimes manufacture a child using one partner's genetic material and the willing cooperation (or genetic material) of a person of the opposite sex. But "surprise pregnancy" isn't in their vocabulary (not unless their partner is secretly "bi" and has been cheating--in which case the child still has nothing whatsoever to do with the relationship).

But state-sodomy marriage supporters insist that their relationships, which are completely and utterly removed from childbearing and into which children only enter by manufacture or adoption are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships which the state recognizes as marriage precisely because the relationship has EVERTHING to do with the children. I'm sorry for shouting, but you'd think this absolutely transparent concept would be understandable even by East Coast liberals; alas, you would be wrong; in their rush to insist that we just have to have state-sodomy marriages they never really care a bit about what happens to the children.

And so you can put a big red "X" through Maine (unless that referendum happens) and probably through New Hampshire as well, to go along with the ones crossing off Vermont, Connecticut, and Iowa. States that love state-sanctioned sodomy and want to call it "marriage" are only going to drive away the handful of actually fecund families still putting up with all that ugly liberal tommyrot, and in a handful of decades their populations are going to decline so much they'll have a hard time stealing enough "revenue" from those who remain to pay for the mandatory government health care for all the state-sodomy marriage couples in the nursing homes. Of course, that's why the real end-game is to force state-sodomy marriage on the whole country; only then will they be able to force the rest of us to "accept" it; it would be intolerable to them that any of us would willingly choose to live in states where the word "marriage" hasn't been twisted into a thoroughly idiotic and fluid concept meaning absolutely nothing at all.

8 comments:

Magister Christianus said...

I like your term, "state sodomy marriage. I have stopped using the incoherent expression "gay marriage" and have replaced it with "sodomite union." Your phrase has the added component of emphasizing the heavy-handedness of government sponsoring sodomy.

Irenaeus said...

It's times like this I actually *hope for* more Islamic immigration, because two generations down the pike, we won't have to deal with this sort of garbage anymore. Of course, we'd have another set of issues...

Kinda like Franz Rosenzweig writes, that the Christian and the Jew need each other to keep each other honest, as it were: The Jew to tamp down the Christian's inner pagan, the Christian to keep the Jew religious. Maybe we all need the Muslim to keep us from falling into societal insanity.

Deirdre Mundy said...

If states are going to allow SSM, then they should also stop making marriage dependent on a SEXUAL relationship.

If the nice young men who run the antique shop get to be 'married', then why can't two spinster sisters living together be married? Or a daughter caring for her elderly mother? Or why can't parents then 'marry' their 'boomerang baby' when he crashes on their couch at age 35, and takes up space but doesn't get them a deduction?

Seriously-- if we're going to give 'alternate family relationships' special legal recognition, why not also grant it to more traditional arrangements that don't include raising children under the age of 18 but come with special responsibilities???

Daddio said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daddio said...

Interesting thoughts, Deirdre. It appears that some relationships are more equal than others.

Erin, I like your concise explanation: "Age and infertility interfere (with procreation) ... same-sex sex acts are not in the same category as the procreative act"

As an adoptive parent, I get particularly peeved when people fail to understand that an unnatural gay sex act is not the same as a heterosexual marital act that happens to be infertile. I think it's similar to when you fertile folks use NFP and enjoy the marital embrace during your infertile times. But you're still OPEN to life.

There was a priest interviewed on CNN sometime who was asked why women can't become priests. He said there is (at least) one thing that a woman can't be, and that is a FATHER. I think the same thing applies to SSM. Even if a gay couple adopts, they cannot be father and mother to that child.

Poor or absent parenting, fathers in particular, are the main cause of same-sex attraction disorder. That's well-documented, but very politically incorrect. It is a disorder, there is an identifiable cause, and it is largely preventable. Boys and girls who grow up without loving fathers ought to remember that it caused them great pain, and they should want to reverse that cycle. But instead some end up rejecting the very idea of manliness and fatherhood and decide to intentionally deprive their children of the thing they missed in their own childhood. Many gay people, while not willing to change or step away from the gay lifestyle, at least do realize that they are unfit to parent. Unfortunately that's no longer the norm.

LarryD said...

Powerful post, Erin. Well done.

Rebecca said...

Deirde, I have often thought the same thing. I don't understand why there should be any special status simply based upon carnal acts of some sort, nor do I understand why this special status should be limited to two people. Why not three or four. Finally I think that this is a real-life reduxio ad absurdum and the people pushing this stuff know that the consequences are absurd, and in the end do not really marriage to exist at all as a state-recognized institution.

Renee said...

Been posting this around its a public policy brief from UMaine in 2002 regarding the out-migration of the state's younger population.University of Maine
Briefing Paper prepared for:
Maine Leadership Consortium, Augusta, Maine
May 2002
Maine’s Disappearing Youth"

The implications of a declining youth population are far-reaching and worrisome. Three areas of particular concern are the impact on Maine’s labor force, on Maine’s public education system,and on Maine culture. Maine is already experiencing a labor shortage in entry-level positions typically filled by young workers. If current trends continue, this labor shortage will expand, and may deter new investment and stunt the prospects for economic growth. While Maine has a sizable cohort of school-aged children, upon reaching age 18, many leave the state for college and, sociologists say, are unlikely to return. In the absence of young adults and their children, enrollments are down in nearly all of Maine’s elementary schools. Culturally, the loss of youth advances the decay of a community’s vital institutions: schools, businesses, clubs and organizations all suffer for lack of"
"Without youth, communities have rather dim futures. The traditional centers of cultural life—granges, schools, churches, general stores, municipal offices—suffer without new members and participants in the life of the community. It is well understood that regions with low educational attainment, lack of access to higher education, poor civic participation, and waning vitality of local government, are the most likely see their youth leave.39 But these conditions are just as likely to be a result of youth out-migration as the cause. It is reasonable to assume that one of the sad consequences of a declining youth population in Maine may be just this sort of cultural decay."
"Conclusion: The need for a Response
Maine’s youth are undeniably disappearing, thanks to an unfortunate combination of low birth rates, high youth out-migration, and low youth in-migration. This paper has outlined the basics of this demographic phenomenon and its possible implications in three areas. A declining youth population is indeed something to be worried about. More than worry, however, the loss of Maine’s youth demands action. Still enjoying the benefits from the continuing growth of the baby-boom cohort, it is easy to become complacent. But Maine must begin to plan now for the anti-boom—the day when the last of the baby-boomers has retired and Maine must function with many lesspeople. Without honest dialogue, and a statewide response, Maine’s economy, education system, and cultural heritage, will no longer be sustainable in years to come.They know of the problem, they ignore it. All of New England has a population loss/out migration/aging problem, influenced politicians are too busy catering to the monetary power of the gay lobby to care about it.

Can a state desire heterosexuals to have children voluntarily with stable healthy relationship if they are unwilling to acknowledge, encourage, and protect them in their public policy?