AS I recall it, it began like this. Former Governor Huckabee (Finn) was on some TV interview and/or call-in show. The question of homosexual marriage came up. He is generally considered, by the Mass Media, to be conservative. As that term means almost nothing these days, he probably is. Official conservative theory wants less government activity. So he was “confronted” with the following question. “How can you, as a person who wants less government, advocate the intrusion of government into what should be an essentially private matter? That is, the government has to get involved to pass laws to prevent homosexuals from marrying each other.” Huckabee became confused. I have yet to hear anyone, including Huckabee, defend the “anti” position correctly. That is, I refer to anyone other than me.
The first point is that marriage is, among other things, a legal contract. Divorce is a legal decision, made by a court. The word “legal,” of necessity, means decided by law. That is it is the business of government. There is an immense amount of family law that deals with these “private”(sic) relationships among husband, wife, children, grandmothers, cousins, etc. That is, the government is ALREADY very heavily involved in these matters. They are not private. The laws deal with property rights and powers over minors. And other laws already deal with “private” sexual matters, making some illegal even when consensual.
Unless one is advocating that the state have NO control of such contractual matters, then any thing---I repeat anything!---to do with marriage will of necessity be a matter of legislation and court decisions, and, sometimes, imprisonment. Currently, this area of government control is not (yet) effective in the area of same gender unions. Those who advocate that such unions be given the same legal status as legal marriages are the ones who are asking for a massive government expansion. Conservatives are consistent in their opposition.
Currently, although not it is not automatic, the courts have a strong prejudice to give mothers custody of children. This is a reflection of cultural values. The presumption simplifies things. If single gender unions were to be legally ended, the custody of children (that is, those unfortunate enough to be placed in such perverted environments) would require entirely different criteria. The decisions might well be based upon which partner could prove himself to be more effeminate. This might make court sessions more interesting, but they would, necessarily, become more complex. More background evidence (and background investigators) would be needed. Exceptionally detailed laws would be demanded, with complex and new court decisions, and appeals, and reversals, and re-writing laws. Once again, a more inclusive definition of marriage would radically EXPAND the role of family law and government.
Let me add a postscript. The homo advocates ask that they be given “equal rights,” equal to the not unnatural people. As no one has the right to marry someone of the same gender, no right is currently being denied anyone. And, regardless of what is said, no one has the right to marry someone he loves. If this were true then people could sue in court, to enforce the right, when rejected by a beloved. I certainly would have wanted to file complaints in that court. I am in favor of any law that forces others to love me.
You may wish to read a blog offered by my good friends Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain. Please visit "Wilde's Wit and Mark's Remarks" Thanks.
Comments