The problem is very simple. I know, most people here know this but I’ll say it anyway. The word that is all the rage and the crux of Leftists’ argument is “marriage equality” But is that true?
That is a subjective term.(for their purposes) It means whatever the user wants it to mean. Marriage equality is defined by the user. Marriage equality for the bigamist is marrying a harem. Marriage for someone else is something else. Do I see them define what “marriage equality” means? Of course not, it is as intentionally vague as most language the left uses.
So it will be up to the person to claim what “marriage” or “marriage equality” is to them. A person wants marriage equality, which to him/her means marrying whatever they want or choose to. Then to deny them that is to deny them equality. But the minute anyone draws a line that it (equality) applies to gays but not others, then they will no longer be standing for “equality” will they? They will be denying someone else their right to “equality”. Get it? When society tries to say it can not apply here or there, then bye-bye equality.
The people who adopted that term as their political lingo will have to apply it to wherever someone demands their “marriage equality” — whatever that means to them. Therefore, there cannot be any laws against the outliers, because that would not be equality and be denying someone equality. So there cannot ever be equality until everyone gets what he/she/it demands. (which by my calculation is the second Tuesday of never) — unless you think it is possible to grant every possibility.
1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (
The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws. I couldn’t marry another man. My wife couldn’t marry another woman. Nor could I marry a cow either. See that is the thing, we are under the same rules.
On the other hand, what they want is to expand the definition of marriage. And yes, it does affect us all, since we are all afforded equal protection of the law. So in effect, they are changing the definition for everyone. It shall mean whatever you want it to mean.
However, no one was denying them the right(s) of marriage, same as the rest of us have. We have that equality now. They are about changing the definition not about “equality”.
But under their newfound definition of equality, no one could be denied the institution of marriage — however one wants to apply it or interpret it. That is what they are asking. It is not about “equality”, it is about ever-expanding definitions of what marriage IS. Remember Bill Clinton: “it depends what the definition of “is” is“. That’s what they are saying.
So all the talk about equality is just that, talk. But no one bugs them about the specious arguments, though they will attack Christians for making a case for the conventional marriage definition. Doing that is supposedly taboo.
Under their ever-expansive definition(s), there are no parameters. It shall mean whatever a particular person wants it to mean. We don’t offer that option in other places either. Remember, they say it is only about equality.
Now people can say why does this matter because “it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”, as Jefferson said? It could be more relevant now than you thought.
This week the NYT took it on itself again to be the teller of all things and frame the political debate. But they framed it using the Methodist Church in their cross hairs. Why this is a central issue at all is because of a prominent retired Methodist pastor who performed a same-sex wedding for his son in NY, back in October 2012. Now the Times zeros in on him.
He happens to be the former Dean of Yale and Drew Universities, and presently professor emeritus of theological ethics at Yale. So they found a pastor with plenty of credentials and bona-fides to press the issue of same-sex marriage. That is what this is about, not just allowing same-sex marriage but having it approved by clergy and institutions of the church.
For long the general conference of the Methodist Church did not permit pastors to perform such weddings. They still don’t. But that did not stop this activist, academic, pastor from acting on his own. It gets worse though, because of his explanations. He said he wanted to perform the wedding because it is his son, and he said he had no intention of acting in civil disobedience by doing it. And he said that when there is a rule that is not right, and you cannot change it, then you break it. All this rationale flowed from him as his reasoning for doing it. Then there was the quiet reprimand he received which asked him to apologize and promise not to perform them again. He rebuffed that offer. Now he is in clear defiance.
The problem is that all those reasons don’t jive. He was not doing it for civil disobedience, then pretty much admits he was. As well as saying if you don’t like the rule then you break it.(is that what we are taught) I can’t imagine this flying in either Yale or Drew for professors underneath him. Does he tell them to ignore what rules they don’t like? No, of course not. But for him this is his reasoning. Defy the authority of the church which ordains him as a minister.
As bad as that is, I can’t say that the UM Church position and reaction was much better. Though they gave him the opportunity to say he would not do it again and he wouldn’t. But he is not doing it for civil disobedience? Oh really! That means he is not in compliance with that rule and who knows what other rules he cares to take issue with? Must be this is what theological ethics teaches?
So anyone can see this is not just about gay-marriage etc. It is about a whole lot more.
referrence article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/nyregion/caught-in-methodisms-split-over-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0
These are pertinent excerpts from the piece.
“Sometimes, when what is officially the law is wrong, you try to get the law changed,” Dr. Ogletree, a native of Birmingham, Ala., said in a courtly Southern drawl over a recent lunch at Yale, where he remains an emeritus professor of theological ethics. “But if you can’t, you break it.”
“I was inspired,” Dr. Ogletree said. “I actually wasn’t thinking of this as an act of civil disobedience or church disobedience. I was thinking of it as a response to my son.”
In late January, Mr. Paige and Dr. Ogletree, accuser and accused, met face-to-face in an effort to resolve the dispute without a church trial. Mr. Paige, who declined to be interviewed for this article, citing the confidentiality of the proceedings, asked that Dr. Ogletree apologize and promise never to perform such a ceremony again. He refused.
“I said, this is an unjust law,” he recalled telling Mr. Paige.
He siad he did it in response to his son, but refusses to say he would not do it again? And he claimed he wasn’t thinking of civil disobedience when doing it, but that is exactly how he rationalizes it. Are all those reasons hard to accept?
“Dearly beloveds, we are gathered here together to join the church to same-sex marriage. Any objections, speak now or forever hold your peace.”