Response to court arguments against Ban on gay marriages
Judges blast Indiana, Wisconsin gay-marriage bans ((http://www.omaha.com/news/nation/judges-blast-indiana-wisconsin-gay-marriage-bans/article_0ba10958-2d0c-11e4-8c12-001a4bcf6878.html?mode=print)
Judge Richard Posner, …… was dismissive when Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Timothy Samuelson repeatedly pointed to `tradition' as the underlying justification for barring gay marriage.
"It was tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry a tradition that got swept away,"Posner said.
Prohibition of same sex marriage, he said, is "a tradition of hate ... and savage discrimination."
The ACLU and Lambda Legal have essentially reiterated their equal protection arguments in appeals
court filings, arguing that the bans deny gay couples state and federal legal protections and benefits
that married straight couples enjoy. "The freedom to marry is a core aspect of personal liberty for all Americans," the ACLU said in its briefs.
Those in support of Traditional Marriage need to make a more reasoned philosophical argument rooted in history theology and science in communicating to liberal, humanistic jurist just why, regardless of what credence is given to non-traditional unions, special consideration must be given to traditional male/female Marriages, and they must not all be considered equal.
The argument from the Pro-choice (Gay marriage) judges as
enunciated by the ACLU is that failure to remove discrimination in
marriage, meaning upholding a ban of same sex marriages denies the
equal protection under law to those who wish to exercise their
individual right to marry as they choose. And while it is true that
such bans amounts to a denial of expression of some individual rights
, history has taught us that as a society in spite of our impulses or
inclinations to express our every human desire, there are times when
we need to self-impose restraints on ourselves for the preservation
and perpetuation of the human race. Thus as a society at some point
we must be prepared to say that in spite of the argument of equal
rights, there are some things which we need to keep out. we should never allow an individual to build a nuclear plant in his own backyard.
Judges too must know that there is no sphere in which the
constitutional right of everyone will always be equally balanced. For
example, a convicted felon: The reason we lock him up and not allow
him to roam free is because we have determined that based on the
historical, social and even biblical practices over the centuries(from which we have derived most of our laws)
that if we allow him to roam that he is likely to bring harm to
others and that cannot be allowed. What do we say to him if he
maintains that he does not have respect to those laws by which a
majoritarian society lives, simply because his philosophy of life is
survival of the fittest? Therefore, in his view, theft,
murder or rape is simply the outflow of human nature which ought to
be given equal expression.
If we operate under such a cloak of cultural relativism,(as proponents of gay marriage seem to be suggesting that we should then society as we know-where there is a constant search to find balance, is unlikely to survive).
Despite protest to the contrary, humanity had taken a decision generally, (in most countries 'Adult Suffrage' (around 16/18) is the age/time when individuals will be able to vote as well as make their own
decisions about many things. We have generally stuck with this age, even though/arguably they are many who
may be able to make such decisions much earlier.
Furthermore, (at
least for the present) as a human-society, we have decided that even
though a physically of or mentally challenged child may be considered by some as a 'drain' on
parent’s resources, the parents are not allowed to
indiscriminately dispose of them.
Though somewhat absurd, one may logically ask: Who gives us this right to tell people what they can and cannot do with situations which affects them intricately? So too it is regarding our responsibility to debt. Generally, we do not allow persons who incur debt to run away from it even thou the benefit they derived from the debt incurred may have long evaporated. Hence it can be seen that as a human-society we have always insisted upon things which in many ways infringe upon that so-called constitutional right of individuals BUT we do it because we know that there is no other way because as a society we cannot have freedom without restrictions on those same freedoms.
Therefore as much as we don’t like it, only a myopic, reckless
and soon to be extinct human society; advocates unqualified freedoms
for all in every sphere without realizing that pursuing such
philosophies without moderation, pushed to their natural/logical conclusion will result in the
eventual destruction of the current species.
This conclusion, as harsh as it may sound, becomes inevitable, because there is no craven division of offices whereby we may safely allow unmitigated freedoms today such as removing the stipulation of marriage as between a man and a woman today and yet withhold its destabilizing effects upon human-society until tomorrow. Both sides must therefore agree that restriction will forever be a natural part of life.
The question therefore which really needs to be addressed is; what criteria should we use and who determines the criteria for determining thorny issues such as same sex marriages, abortion, euthanasia and such like?
In honestly answering this question I sincerely believe that we need to use the argument/experience from scripture, history and science.
The argument from history must reflect on what has served our
purpose all along as a human society and had gotten us to this point
where groups like those pushing same sex marriages are allowed to
freely state their claims.
In responding to the judges very valid
argument that marriages between blacks and whites were once deemed
unconstitutional because of traditional discrimination; I say let us take a more reasoned approach than our predecessors. I believe if
Western society had honestly read and studied the Bible, it supposedly fought so hard to defend, such arguments would never have been enforced
because that great book which speaks emphatically, spoke of the equality of
all men. The Book of Acts points out, The God made all men of one blood
to dwell on the earth.
The argument form scripture must therefore include historical teachings of scripture even though some may be weary of previous manipulation of scripture by many for the sake of their discriminatory views. Because, in spite of those who abused it, for selfish purposes the Bible has brought the western world to the place we are presently, where there is respect and tolerance for each other.
The argument form science must insist on procreation as an essential element of society’s continuance. Therefore, in my view, even though society should, and one feels will eventually be forced to accede to the individual’s right to marry who he/she chooses. It is also (society’s), responsibility to fight to preserve the continuance of society by insisting that marriage between a man and a woman can in no way be equal to any other union, nor must any other same sex union be allowed to claim equal status.
Thus in allowing same sex unions it’s like allowing anyone to choose their desired religion but not allowing them to force it on others. The reason why we insist that they be not allowed to force it on others is because we believe it is our duty to preserve this aspect of freedom in society, so too it must be our responsibility to preserve the procreation of society through insisting on marriage as a union between one man and a woman.