Same Sex “Marriage” Is Really About the Demise of Real Marriage

We’re reaching another point of impact in the ongoing train wreck that is “same sex marriage” and the courts. As the Chillicoth Gazette reports,

The broadest attack yet on states’ gay marriage bans will be Wednesday in a packed courtroom in downtown Cincinnati, where lawyers challenging four states’ prohibitions will stand shoulder to shoulder in hopes of convincing a three-judge panel the bans are unconstitutional.

The states — Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee — have so far waged their battles separately, fighting to uphold the bans that voters years ago passed.

Each state faces slightly different challenges filed by same-sex couples, including the right to adopt children as a couple, to have their names placed on their partner’s death certificates, and to have their marriages, performed legally elsewhere, recognized in the states they call home.

Despite the variations in the attacks, the ultimate targets are the bans, and the real goal is the right to marry, adopt children and enjoy the same rights that opposite-sex couples have when they exchange vows.

The fact that this question is before the courts is proof we have all gone insane. To see this, just fill in the blank:

I have the right to marry

  1. a person of the opposite sex who consents to marry me
  2. a person of the same sex who consents to marry me
  3. my house pet
  4. my sibling if that person consents
  5. my parent or child if that person consents
  6. several consenting adults of either sex
  7. a minor of either sex who I get to consent

So what is the rule that will permit 1 and 2 to complete the sentence and not the other numbers?

Cue the outrage. How dare I compare homosexuality to bestiality or incest…? Sorry, honey, that was not my idea. If Sally Fields can make the connection, in the name of promoting sexual liberation, then I can’t be blamed for making stuff up. If it is good enough for Yale University, who am I to disagree? For that matter, West Germany legalized homosexuality and bestiality TOGETHER back in 1969. So I’m not making up the connection.

Why are we even pretending that the marriage of a man and a woman can be substituted for two persons of the same sex? What moral rule allows same sex marriage but not a brother and sister from marrying?

(And if there are no moral rules, then there can be no such thing as marriage at all.)

The real question is: Why does marriage mean so little to people that they would equate it with such a travesty. Obviously, the first answer would be the breakdown of a moral consensus. Without a moral understanding, the Fourteenth Amendment can be forced to rule in just about any way you like. Our moral consensus used to be informed by the Bible, but that is long gone.

A related answer would be that certain economic changes have made marriage a great deal less important to people than it used to be. The fact is that even heterosexual marriage is a shadow of what it used to be. This is not only due to insane no-fault divorce laws, but also due to technology: