05 December 2013

Gay Marriage Revisited

Gavin McInnes:

I then reiterated what everyone on the panel seemed to agree on. One, the right needs to get over gay marriage. Rush Limbaugh admits that battle has been lost and even Bill O’Reilly says gay-marriage proponents have a good argument. Let’s let it go. Us straights are not exactly setting a great example when it comes to the tradition.
I’ve written on gay marriage before, and I still stand by what I’ve said.  As McInnes notes, straights aren’t exactly paragons when it comes to holding marriage sacred (divorce and single parenthood, e.g.).  However, let’s not pretend like the matter of gay marriage is anything other than gays wanting the government to impose moral/ethical values on those of the Judeo-Christian religious persuasion.  Gay marriage is not about rights; it’s about controlling the culture.

I say this because, as a legal institution, straights have the exact same restrictions regarding marriage that gays do.  No one, whether straight or gay, can marry another person of the same gender, can marry a close blood relative (parent or sibling, say), can marry a minor,* can marry an animal, can marry a corpse, can marry multiple people simultaneously, or can marry someone of unsound mind and judgment.

The restrictions on marrying minors or those of unsound mind and judgment stem from historical legal ethics rooted in common law.**  The remaining restrictions are strongly rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics, which is why the specific form of contract is called marriage, and not civil union.  As such, and attempt to redefine marriage is simply an attempt to undermine Judeo-Christian values.  It is not a matter of fairness or justice because the law applies equally to everyone.  If, hypothetically, two straight men wanted to marry each other for tax purposes, they could not.  Nor can a straight man marry multiple women simultaneously, nor could he marry his mother, sister, or daughter.  The law doesn’t actually care about sexual orientation or discriminate based on it, but is concerned solely with the nature of the arrangement. Thus, gay men are forbidden from marrying each other not because they are gay but because marriage is between one man and one women, who are not blood relatives, dead, from another species, etc.

Fundamentally, though, the real reason why the war against gay marriage is lost is because, as I have noted before, the war against marriage in general is already over:
Gay marriage is not ruining this country.  This country is already ruined.  Gay marriage is simply a symptom of the underlying pathology.  The social fabric of the county is already in tatters, and hating gays isn’t going to fix that particular problem.
 Furthermore, gay marriage isn’t even ruining marriage.  Feminism, coupled with no-fault divorce and a misandrist family court system have done more damage to the social institution of marriage than Adam and Steve ever could.
Thus, I continue to stand by my recommendation that the government get out of the marriage business altogether.  Conservatives who are serious about marriage can establish their own societies and uphold the norms they see fit; gays can do likewise.  My advice for conservatives, though, is that they should fix divorce and the underlying spiritual pathology that accompanies it instead of merely worrying about the gays. Conservatives need to worry about the beams in their eyes before they start picking at the motes in others’ eyes.

* There are exceptions, but they generally involve parental consent, and there are still minimum age requirements.

**  Specifically regarding contracts since it was generally assumed to be unfair to contractually bind those who were generally considered incapable of understanding the nature of contracts for themselves.