- Text smaller
- Text bigger
“Don’t mess with Mother Nature.” Remember that old bromide? Well, it’s seeming more and more relevant these days. We’re being bombarded with a controversial theory called “global warming.” If it has any merit, the culprit is human behavior and lack of respect for beleaguered Mother Nature.
Our dependence on fossil fuels and that gooey mud called oil has polluted and stained our environment, and the environment is now serving it back to us. Water, clean pure drinking water, is becoming scarce. It could become more valuable than gold; after all, it is more necessary for life itself. And good ole boy, T. Boone Pickens is staking some of his many millions on wind power and natural gas as viable and necessary alternatives to oil as sources of energy. More power to him!
But, slipping sort of under the radar is another messy, very problematic consequence of “messing with Mother Nature.” The highest courts in a couple of states have caved into massive pressure from homosexual activists and decreed that same sex couples could be officially “married.” That flew in the face of all recorded human history and all the social and moral norms civilizations have lived by since time began.
Of course, “progressives” celebrated this as a great forward step for mankind. The “mainstream” media (populated with not a few who live the homosexual lifestyle) have generally made this seem like a good and inevitable thing. Homosexuality has been equated with race and ethnicity, and, therefore, “gays” were deemed entitled to a “just” range of legal and social benefits. And now, activist groups are insisting that grade-school kids be indoctrinated to approve of and even admire those who practice the behavior and live the lifestyle. It’s a brave new world, right?
Not so fast. Now lots of related and unforeseen problems are arising. Messing with Mother Nature, including physical biology, has lots of social consequences.
To my amazement, the venerable (and very liberal) Los Angeles Times carried a feature story on its front page, “The next same-sex challenge: divorce.” What? Divorce already? Yes.
The story focuses on a couple of middle-aged women who had lived together in a lesbian relationship for 10 years. When Massachusetts, over the opposition of then Gov. Mitt Romney, approved same-sex unions, the two women raced in from Rhode Island to get “married.” They, like all the other couples the media showed us, were ecstatic.
Now, after only two years of this “matrimony,” they want to divorce. But the catch is: They live in a state that hasn’t validated their union, so they aren’t officially married. So, they can’t get a legal divorce either!
You see, Congress – doing the expressed will of the American people – passed the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law in 1996 by then President Bill Clinton. That act prohibited the federal government from recognizing any same-sex relationship as a legal marriage. And it also gave states the explicit right not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they were legal.
Most states have now passed statutes or constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. But now courts in all those states – and in the two where the courts have overruled the will of the people on this issue – will have to rule on whether that means that “married” homosexual couples should be allowed to divorce!
And all kinds of other knotty, almost unsolvable problems now arise. What happens to combined assets and benefits and capital gains taxes, and on and on, when the “marriages” (with their statistical chances for break-up worse than those of heterosexual couples) come apart?
“These problems illustrate why it is a bad idea to redefine marriage in California in a way that is at odds with the rest of the country,” said Andrew Pugno, legal adviser to Protectmarriage.com, a coalition of churches, organizations and individuals supporting the California Marriage Protection Act on the November ballot.
Now, some protest that government should just let people do what they want and not define marriage, or any other social institution in legal terms. But I say it is a responsibility and duty of government – we, the people – to do just that. After all, we’re the ones who have to pay the bills and underwrite any and all institutions considered legal. The vast majority of us, who disagree strongly with homosexual behavior and its terrible toll in disease, and have expressed that will in congressional acts and measures, are terribly incensed to face having to pay the costs of the whole garbled, expensive and confusing mess.
Our constitutional government is designed, purposely, to protect and define and tax and prohibit all kinds of behavior. These are among its main functions.
So, if you’re so inclined, call your same-gender mate your “spouse,” even have a ceremony in an agreeable church and live together. But don’t say the state is trampling on your “rights” if it doesn’t expand its definition of marriage and hand you the corresponding benefits of the legal and time-honored institution. Don’t say so just because you, and an angry activist minority, want to define it your way.
There are a disturbing number of weekend “militias” and secretive groups training for militant acts across our nation; that doesn’t entitle them to government funding, rights of trespass and any kind of legal authority. Just as with marriage, the militia, with all its entitlements, is something we the people must define.
If we’re going to preserve this republic, this democratic and constitutional way of life, we’re going to have to commit again to the will of the people – not the will of little splinter and aberrant groups, no matter how loud and “in our face” they may be.
And if we’re going to preserve the human race itself, we should commit again to the structure that preserves and perpetuates it. Reason, sanity, morality and a recognition of biological function demand it.
It’s not nice – nor is it safe – to mess with Mother Nature.