Is Marriage Discriminatory?
May 26, 2008
By Lee Ellis
Americans are losing their votes to Court legislation.
The California Supreme Court has legislated against Proposition 22 which declared, "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." This had passed by an amazing 61% of the vote. Yet the Court declared it unconstitutional only because, in the opinion of four judges, it was "discriminatory." This ruling had nothing to do with the Constitution or historic reasons.
How is it that "discrimination" supposedly and suddenly affects so much of our lives? What does this mean and why are these judges legislating liberal views? If discrimination is the key to who needs the rites of marriage, then this begs many questions rather than answers. Will our society expect similar claims of discrimination from NAMBLA --.the man-boy-love organization? It has, in the past, tried to push its cause via public relations and web sites.
Then there are the people who demand the rights of bestiality (man-animal sexual unions). Just Google this word and you will be shocked, as was I, at the tremendous number of pages promoting this.
And, of course, we can all remember the 24/7 news coverage on polygamy groups. Will they also want the Supreme Court to declare monogamy as discriminatory?
Letters printed in the newspapers and on the Internet are also blaming religious groups, churches and even condemning the Bible for not accepting marriage between everyone. They also push the discrimination theory. At this rate, one might wonder how long it will take before criminals also claim discrimination when we put them in jail because they only wanted or needed something that they did not have. Does it follow that defense lawyers will assert that not having the right to take what one wants would be a form of discrimination of the "have-nots" by the "haves"? Madame LaFarge is knitting again at this very thought.
So how did marriage originally happen? Many suggest that it was never created as a legal vehicle for financial benefits; the reasons were much more about future life. Yes, it started out as a religious belief, but it was for only one main reason many theologians have said. It was the only way to start a family life with the same common name and blood-line that could be traced throughout history. Without this happening, brothers could end up unknowingly marrying sisters, cousins or other close relatives, thus harming the future children. Descendents would never be able to learn about their ancestors. Family history would be lost forever.
That this was originated before medical knowledge has proven to be prescient as we have discovered the importance of gene-tracking, DNA and other knowledge of the importance of biological ties in family lives.
Following this logic, the act of marriage between a man and woman has been created for only one purpose and that is for the biological and historical protection of potential children and their descendents. It has nothing to do with discrimination since equal rights are now given to couples of the same sex who want a legal union. Answers to all these questions should remain with the votes of the citizens of each state, not legislated by the courts.
Political Correctness followers continue to wage war against our American culture as they slowly destroy it bit by bit from within until the American freedom created for us by those brave men of 1776 no longer exists. It was said that we must be politically correct so as not to offend people and thus be united with each other. This theory has proven wrong.
Political Correctness serves to separate people from their values, judgment, and individualism, creating Balkanism and a greater form of division. We used to ask, "What would Reagan have done;" now we may be asking after 2009, "What has our government done to our nation?"
Our grandkids may be asking "Why our grandparents did allow this to happen?"