"We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.
– George Washington, First Inaugural Address
There is an order to things. For thousands of years, human beings have been pair bonding, male to female, for the purpose of procreation and societal cohesiveness. Through this union, the family became the primary social unit. There have been varying degrees of religious significance placed upon this union, but it has typically been recognized as sacrosanct and inviolate. The union, which came to be called "marriage," has many analogues in nature, as well as human philosophy, myth, legend and literature. It also appears to have been a cultural inevitability based on our biology, given its universal application across millennia and the globe.
In most societies, marriage has retained that religious or spiritual significance, since spirituality is more of a nominal human condition than non-spirituality. In Judeo-Christian culture, marriage is generally accepted as having been ordained by God. Historically, as the strength and significance of marriage falters, the family unit follows, and society as a whole is never far behind.
In recent years, some of those in the West who practice homosexuality have come to demand that society grant the same significance to committed same-sex unions as it does to marriage. Essentially, this amounts to a wholesale change of consensus, or a summary redefinition of "marriage" according to the whim of this faction.
I find it quite surreal that as I write this, the most learned legal minds in the country are being compelled to debate an issue that is wholly specious on its face. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments against the State of California voters' right to have banned "same-sex marriage," but all that ban amounts to in a practical sense is an agreement that the semantic argument not be broached. Do California voters have a right to do so? Certainly – but they no more have a right to bar homosexuals from marrying than they do conferring upon them the right to marry.
Thus, my ongoing contention that we as a society have neither the power nor the ability to change the definition of "marriage," nor can we confer the "right" to marry upon those who do not possess an a priori qualification to be married. I can petition a college sorority to accept me as a sister, and they might even do so after a fashion; but I will never be a "sorority sister," because I am a man. Similarly, same-sex couples will never occupy a state of matrimony, no matter what laws we pass or semantic gymnastics we manage to execute.
The very nature of the argument for "same-sex marriage" illustrates that the political left has sufficiently muddied the waters that even Supreme Court justices do not possess a cogent concept of what marriage is.
Which was precisely the idea.
The quest for "same-sex marriage" (which, as has been established, doesn't exist) is not about the civil rights of homosexuals or the well-worn catch phrase "marriage equality." Like everything championed by the political left, it is about weakening America's cultural and societal foundation; it is but one component in the anti-theistic, Christophobic design of the radical left.
In fact, outside of a handful of the whopping 3.5 percent of Americans who identify as homosexual, most of those who are advancing this offensive are not homosexual, nor do they care in the least about the civil rights of homosexuals. They are the power brokers of the left, the same people who continually strive to alienate ethnic minorities, women, the poor and whomever else they can from societal convention.
Apart from those types, the people who advocate most vociferously for "marriage equality" are militant homosexuals and the most rabid leftists. The majority of those with whom I interact on a frequent basis are young and ill-informed, but they all share the same venomous hatred for everything smacking of Christianity, employing the same tiresome charges relative to those holding traditional values being intolerant and hateful.
As we know, a great deal of misrepresentation, propaganda and outright lies have been used throughout this discussion. First, it was necessary to establish that homosexuality was a matter of nature rather than a choice, so that homosexuals could not be faulted for their lifestyle; this, the left managed to do despite having no empirical evidence to support the claim. Advocates for "same-sex marriage" maintain that a preponderance of Americans support it, which has by no means been established, either. They assert that the children of homosexual couples are at least as well-adjusted as those of married couples. This has also not been proven, although there is emerging evidence to the contrary. They also draw irrelevant parallels between interracial marriage and "gay marriage." All the while, they vigorously articulate the charge that homosexuals are somehow being persecuted if society does not confer upon their unions the same honor as they do married couples.
If all this were a matter of equitable health insurance coverage, taxation or inheritance, civil unions would be the way to go. It is quite true, as many of our libertarian friends contend, that the state should never have gotten involved in the business of marriage to start with. For civil purposes, certificates of some sort of recognition might have been instituted for married couples, such as when someone changes their name. This way, if two homosexuals wanted to play house, they could have whatever familial parameters they desired formally registered and recognized in the same manner.
But civil unions are not good enough. In order for the left to achieve their objective, the political left must compel all of America to capitulate, to embrace and honor homosexual unions as "marriage." It is only in this way that the requisite societal dissolution may progress.