Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right
By: Craig Chamberlain
The Fascists should be happy, they finally got a state legislature to proclaim homosexual “marriage” the same thing as a traditional marriage. You know the type of marriage that has been the norm in the western world since the beginning. Some comfort can be taken from the fact that itâ€™s Vermont weâ€™re talking about here, hardly a bastion of sanity, reason, or decency. So the jackboot state legislature proclaiming gay “marriage” the new law of the land should shock us about as much as the Iranian government pronouncing death on America or Israel. The state legislature, which is about as democratic as Saddam Husseinâ€™s old parliament, decided to override the veto of Gov. Douglass(R-VT). What a shock.
Why should we worry about what Vermont does? After all itâ€™s easy to ignore such a state, the lunatics took over that asylum a long time ago, and it doesnâ€™t look like sanity is about to make a comeback anytime soon. Itâ€™s just best to ignore it, right?
Well, not quite. First of all this is a concerted effort by left wing judges and left wing activists to rip the traditional definition of marriage to pieces. Itâ€™s been a dream of these infantile goons since the days of Karl Marx. Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, proclaimed “abolition of the family” the left has long believed that the state is better qualified, and more suited, to raising children than a mother and father. After all mom and dad might fill juniors head with such things as patriotism, belief in God, and hard work. The goon squads canâ€™t allow that. A citizenry raised on principles and ideas contrary to their own! A populace able to think for itself and able to resist the mindless indoctrination the left uses on the American people from cradle to grave. Well, if the family is the one bastion in opposition to that, then the family must go.
They know that they canâ€™t abolish the family outright, the USSR briefly tried this but gave up quickly, so theyâ€™ve opted for another strategy. If they canâ€™t abolish the family then they will change the definition of what a family is.
For thousands of years the idea of what a family constituted was common sense, and no one would have bothered to question the definition. Only a simpleton or a madman would bother. A family was a group of people related by blood. This might entail an extended family with grandparents, parents, and children, or a nuclear family with just parents and children. Man and wife was always one man and one woman. No one said a family was two men and the child they adopted, no one said a family was one man and ten women, no one said a group marriage was a family. I guess they didnâ€™t have federal judges, and the Vermont state legislature, to enlighten them.
All of that has changed. Leftists have launched a systematic campaign against the traditional model of the family. They will use whatever tactic is convenient for them, when they no longer need homosexuals, theyâ€™ll be discarded. First they told women they didnâ€™t need a husband to raise children, and they told men they didnâ€™t need to take responsibility for the children they fathered. The state could step in and do their job. Weâ€™ve seen the results. Over 40% of all American children are now born out of wedlock, and for minority children the rate is much higher.
Children born out of wedlock are more likely to drop out of school, become drug addicts, become single parents themselves, or end up in prison. These facts have been documented so many times that no serious sociologist, or political commentator denies them anymore. Even if they acknowledge the problem, the left still will not acknowledge the solution. The left believes the problems of illegitimacy can be solved with more state control, more welfare.
The Gay “marriage” argument is another prong in their attack on the traditional family. Despite what they say this isnâ€™t about marriage but about advancing the political agenda and increasing the power of the state. They argue that marriage is a civil right that has been denied to homosexuals, and those that oppose them are dangerous bigots. Like their Marxist predecessors, they argue historical inevitability. The communists spent decades yelling that their philosophy was the way of the future, and no matter how much the reactionaries fought against them they would win. The proponents of gay “marriage” make the same claim. “Itâ€™s going to happen no matter how much you kick and scream, so you might as well give up now, and go back to your NASCAR and your Bible thumping.”
Except, gay “marriage” is not a civil right. A civil right is something guaranteed by the constitution. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble are all civil rights. The constitution is silent on marriage. All of the founding fathers understood what marriage was, it was the union of one man and one woman, united together for the intent to raise a family. If they had thought that the intellectual capabilities of later Americans would be so low they probably would have left an explicit definition of marriage, and an article in the constitution outlining what it legally is. In fact gay “marriage” goes against the first amendment to the constitution. It would inevitably infringe on the religious freedoms of the American people. Churches would refuse to perform or sanction gay “marriages” because it goes against one of their core beliefs. They would be sued for discrimination, and the leftists, who have no tolerance for religion to begin with, would use state power to force the churches to recognize and perform gay wedding services. We canâ€™t argue that gay “marriage” is constitutionally implied, when it goes against an explicit right of the constitution.
Since marriage is not addressed by the constitution, itâ€™s not a civil right. Of course, this silence doesnâ€™t just exclude homosexuals. Polygamists are excluded, and all states have laws forbidding marriage between close relatives. This if for the best. Abraham Lincoln was right when he said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. The 19th century debate over slavery offered many solutions including the “popular sovereignty” of Senator Stephen Douglas. This allowed every state and territory to decide the issue for itself. But Lincoln understood that the country could not be half slave and half free. It had to choose one or the other.
The same goes for our time. We must choose one or the other. Where the people themselves have been allowed to vote in a popular referendum, the results have been unanimous. The people have always voted for a traditional definition of marriage. We cannot have one bloc of states that spits in the face of thousands of years of western history, and the constitution itself, and have another group of states that upholds the traditional identity of marriage. If such a thing were to occur we wouldnâ€™t be one nation for long.
Gays have all the civil rights that the rest of the American people have. They have the right to vote, the right to run for office, and serve in office. They have the right to serve in the military, they have the rights of freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and all constitutional rights that the rest of the American people have. There are no segregated fountains for homosexuals, no signs in businesses that say “no gays allowed” they are not forced to sit in the back of the bus or the train, they have the right to own property and the right to leave that property to their partner if they so wish.
The American people need to stand up and tell the leftists that their radical agenda will not be tolerated. They have no constitutional basis for this anti family jihad, nor do they have the right to make American culture in their image. Traditionalists should not be cowed into silence, or terrified into inaction. When we stand up for our rights and our constitution we win, itâ€™s when we do nothing, or are not given the chance to act, that they get their way. The “living constitution” allows them to act as an unelected oligarchy imposing their whims as law. We need to stand up to the tyranny of the judges(or the tyranny of Democratic state legislatures for that matter) and stand up for the real constitution.