-
Born-Alive Infants Butchered to Death — No News Here
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Refuting the Libertarian Argument on Marriage
March 28, 2013 | 2 comments
-
New, Young Faces of the Pro-Life Movement
February 20, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Friedman: Liberals Are ‘Pro-Life’ For Banning Soda
October 31, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Will Charlotte Taxpayers Be on the Hook For Democrats’ Party?
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In covering the debate over a state marriage amendment in North Carolina, I engaged in a back-and-forth with a liberal denizen of Twitter over whether civil marriage is a right. Somehow, it degenerated into her asking me whether I was married (the implication being that I had no right to speak on such matters if I wasn’t). I replied — quite charmingly and cheekily — by asking if she was in the market. To which she replied that she was, but only for a real man (defined, I guess, as one who thinks homosexual marriage is terrific).
Rejected again. But I digress.
A lot hinges on the question of whether marriage is “a right,” and how that’s understood. Lefties, typically, will cast the marriage debate as a conservative crusade to take away “rights.” I can see where they get that. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared traditional marriage between a man and a woman a right. When the court overturned a state ban on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), the court held that marriage “is one of the basic civil rights of man.” Properly understood, I agree with that assessment. Misunderstood, however, it’s disastrous.
Does a civil right to marriage entail that government must recognize whatever two (or more) consenting adults consider a “marriage”? In other words, each individual defines their own right? Naturally, no. We wouldn’t even apply that standard to rights specified in the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. There are parameters around that right — U.S. citizenship and aged 18 or over, to name two. So the right to vote is not a blanket right. Residents have to meet certain requirements.
Marriage is the same way. It’s a right, yes, but there are parameters. A big one is that it must be a male-female relationship. In many states, younger teens have to get parental consent before getting married. There also are laws against marrying inside one’s own family (certainly brothers and sisters, but also first cousins). So while it’s a right, it’s not whatever anyone decides it is, any more than the right to vote is self-defined on an individual basis.
What liberals want is the “right” to redefine marriage to be whatever they choose. But life — and our constitutional government — doesn’t work that way.
In the meantime, I’m rethinking my Twitter dating strategy.
View all comments (12) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by David N. Bass
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/08/30/how-my-twitter-dating-strategy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
JohnD| 8.30.11 @ 4:59PM
The civil, secular institution of marriage exists for the benefit of society - not for the benefit of those getting married, necessarily. It provides a structure for raising the children which naturally come about from a result of inevitable male-female physical contact.
That said, whenever someone says gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage, my response is, "it was already destroyed by no-fault divorce."
My working class parents and their generation struggled mightily financially in their early years of marriage. But they hung tough, raised their kids, and stayed together until death.
Now if a couple struggle financially, the woman a can file for divorce and her financial problems are over. She'll leave court with a check if her husband wants to stay out of jail.
Al Adab| 8.30.11 @ 5:17PM
The issue of "gay marriage" is actually about the money, that is the benefits which accrue to the married. Health care coverage through employment; the married filing jointly tax system; insurance benefits and so on are the root. Those who cannot qualify simply resent that these things are available to some while not to others. We have created the issue through such social engineering laws as we cite above.
With God all things r possible| 8.31.11 @ 12:58PM
No it isn't. It's about forcing everyone else to accept their immoral lifestyle and choices, so they won't have to see and hear from other people what their conscience tells them daily.
And it is not social engineering to recognize and privilege the traditional family, which has a mommy and a daddy and children, and which is the only known building block of successful societies since the beginning of recorded time. Besides, only that kind of family makes and rears future taxpayers successfully. Most felons did not grow up with a dad, so we know that single motherhood is a greatly disadvantaged backup to the traditional family. While we do not yet know the full scale of social pathologies that will result from homosexual and lesbian parenting, my bet is that it even worse.
My wife and I will invest nearly a million dollars raising our kids, says a recent figure. Having the government decide not to pile taxes on top of every piece of that is sound policy, not social engineering. Such forward-looking, self-sacrificing thoughts, however, are alien to the gay movement, from John Maynard Keynes on up.
Occam's Tool| 8.30.11 @ 5:35PM
David: you still after have to be able to stand the girl after the boots stop knocking.
This one sounds like she wouldn't know what testosterone was if she was sprayed with it.
MikeBee| 8.30.11 @ 6:22PM
David,
Good article! Further, though: if marriage is a right, why are there single people? How can it be fair that an ugly woman or man doesn't have any courters? It's their basic right. They should get to pick someone, and that someone should be forced to marry them, so that their basic rights are not violated. IF marriage is a right.
Quartermaster| 8.30.11 @ 7:38PM
There are many rights I have but, I have no right to have some one else pay for them.
I would, however, be very happy to force Senator Shumer to pay for the Ma Deuce I've had my eye on for a number of years.
pu | 8.31.11 @ 6:14AM
good information ,thank you to share,Im glad to read
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.31.11 @ 6:44AM
Just Twitter that you have inherited a lot of money.
That should keep you busy for months.
top 10 digital cameras under 2 | 9.2.11 @ 2:54PM
nice article Im happy to ready
yisong| 10.27.11 @ 9:49PM
compact in design,and light in weight.The balls contact with the circular race at four points,via which the axial force,radial force and resultant moment may be born simultaneously. http://www.1stbearing.com