Thursday, September 26, 2013

Breibart Writer Says Gay Marriage Will PREVENT Governmental Control

Now I've seen everything.- author unknown to me.

When people who are supposedly on your side in the fight to oppose the onslaught of the Progressive/Socialist movement use Orwellian language to promote a key facet of the agenda of the postilion, we are in terrible trouble. The writer in  Breibart, in an effort to restrict war on marriage to a religious issue, engages in the most convoluted reasoning that I have ever witnessed to argue that to support gay marriage is to oppose governmental control on the family:

"....Conservatives believe marriage and close families are a stabilizing influence in culture, the building block of communities. They are not wrong. But that makes opposition to recognizing same-sex marriages even stranger. New generations of gays and lesbians, with no loyalty or interest in the doctrine of the sexual revolution, seek this same stabilization. There isn’t some sort of a trick or a scam or scheme. Because of the progressive control of the argument, weighted words like “equality” and “fairness” set some conservatives on edge because those words have been corrupted over decades as a way to diminish others, the socialist idea of achieving these aims by taking property and freedoms away from others.

A conservative can accept gay marriage recognition and still resist such efforts from the left. Ultimately, the government should have as little say in your family’s relationship as it does in your education and what you do with your property. That the government ties up so many incentives and rights in marriage agreements should be troubling to conservatives. Marriage should be a private contract between consenting adults to tell the state the nature of their relationship with each other for legal purposes, not a permit from the state giving its stamp of approval on their relationship.

We define our families, not the government. Ultimately, the ceding of this power to government helped create this environment of subsidies, benefits (and even penalties) that have contributed to the twisted incentives conservatives rail against

The problem has always been too much government control, not too little. Intellectual consistency in the belief in small government mandates accepting the rights of families to organize themselves. Conservatives should resist the urge to try to use government authority to control family structures, because that power will always be subject to abuse by ideological opponents....."

That is far and away the most convoluted, backwards, Orwellian logic that I have ever seen. In order to oppose governmental control over families, support of same-sex marriage is exactly what must be avoided.

This very issue is the one that should provide impetus for religious and non-religious secular conservatives to unite. When a government takes upon itself the power to create institutions, especially in regards to ones that predate all governments by thousands of years, we have a dangerous precedent - one that poses a direct threat of governmental interference with the family. Allow the government to tell us that there is a new type of marriage, and we could find ourselves hit with even more intrusions on the family in coming years than we have now. The foot in the door of asserting a new and dangerously creative power of government sets us up for trouble. Governments are given the authority to regulate marriage to avoid abuses and to confine it to types that are germane to its inherent culture.That's why we don't allow underage brides, multiple brides, or still-married people to marry before obtaining a divorce. Marriage is an institution that falls within the Natural Law. An artificial construct that is the State cannot have, nor can it be allotted, the authority to create. The authority to create is the authority to severely restrict or to take away.

Even the Catholic Church, which is rightly or wrongly the most centrally organized body in Christianity and is criticized by Protestants for giving too much authority to the magisterium, freely admits that even it cannot forbid Catholics to be married without a priest. The quite-hierarchical Church will require a priest for five of its seven sacraments, but it freely admits that Baptism and Marriage do not have the absolute need for a Priest. No Priests around or coming soon? That did not stop Tokugawa- suppressed Japanese Catholics nor would it stop marriages today.The Catholic Church did not regularly perform marriages until around (estimating at the moment) the 11th century. If a strictly centralized organization such as the Catholic Church that requires Priests for most everything effectively admits that it does not have some lock on marriage on its own members, then it follows that the Church knows that its authority does not include a defining authority over marriage itself.

The demands of the radial gay faction and their Leftist allies who want nothing more than overreaches of governmental authority are resulting in - yes Liberals, lots of wins, but at what cost even for you guys? We are being rent in two with vicious thuggery on the part of gay marriage supporters on one side, and the even more vicious Westboro Baptist Boys on the other. What are Liberals going to do if people start leaving liberal states at an even faster rate than now, coalesce in a state or two, and start a real legal war in which fake marriages are not given the legislative play-act of recognition? Are you OK with what can follow that? I assure you it won't be anything like when artificial laws such as those that requires segregation existed; an issue of governmental control on marriage and by extension the family will be very hard to solve with federalization of the National Guard and DHS police/troops
-The purpose of gay marriage is to establish full governmental control of society and all of its people.

Think about it. If the State can force people to act as if a government can bring the impossible into existence, and force everyone to go along with it, then what is it incapable of doing or forcing? If a society accepts that the State can conjure up institutions by going through the motions of making laws, what can stop them from removing rights or creating others that infringe on the Liberties of the rest of the people?"

No comments:

Post a Comment