Some time ago, I did an article on how, logically, if you claim to be born deviating from what is known as normal sexuality (gay, transgender) then you have to admit to being a genetic defect. Genetically you are a male or female, that is the natural selection once the zygote is fertilized- whether you get an additional X chromosome or a Y chromosome. That is the only two natural, logical choices. If you insist that you were born homosexual, or that you wish you were another gender that the one you were born as, then the only causality is an abnormality or genetic defect in the process of mitosis. The other option is that your desires are psycho-socially driven, but since most of these individuals would resist that point of view, that they learned to be that way, the only other recourse is genetic defect.
I put the blame fully on Bill (can’t keep it in my pants) Clinton for the Supreme Court mess that they will rule at the end June on ‘gay marriage’ for all the wrong reasons. Clinton could have stopped all of this mess if he had signed the original DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act). He had it sent back to remove a clause that would have allowed individuals who were in ‘civil unions’ to have all of the Federal rights and responsibilities of a traditional marriage couple. He claims that he did so reluctantly in view of the veto-proof majority, both to avoid associating himself politically with the then-unpopular cause of same-sex marriage, and to defuse momentum for a proposed Federal Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage. Until Section 3 of the Act was ruled unconstitutional in 2013, DOMA, in conjunction with other statutes, had barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as “spouses” for purposes of federal laws, effectively barring them from receiving federal marriage benefits. A simple law granting for all federal purposes the same rights including insurance benefits for government employees, social security survivors’ benefits, immigration, bankruptcy, and the filing of joint tax returns would have prevented the mess we are now in.
I feel that what we are seeing in the “gay ‘marriage’” agenda is the final completion of an a-rational manifestation of an entirely feelings-based movement. I call it ‘a-rational’ rather than irrational. Though the arguments are irrational, that only matters insofar as there is actually an attempt to have an argument–in the normal logical sense of the word. If someone‘s behavior is based on feelings or instinct, reason and rationality goes out the door.
Let me take a moment to illustrate the utter depths of idiocy that we have been driven to regarding “gay marriage”. The goal here is not to belittle anyone or be condescending or bigoted toward anyone. In describing what follows as idiocy, my hope is to get a flame of reason out of any tiny sparks of reason that may be left–while it still matters… if it still matters. What is happening is, in any intelligent and sane universe, must be called idiocy and lunacy. It is not an insult if it is true, and that is what we are dealing with: we are just talking about some really, truly, stupid things. I do not like using this type of language, but I do like using accurate language. I am in the position of finding out that what I am seeking to describe, if described accurately, requires this name calling description.
I am referring to the arguments made by Mary Bonauto[i] to SCOTUS in the recent gay marriage case, Obergefell vs. Hodges.
Justice Alito: “Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?”
Now, this is the question that has been asked of ‘gay marriage’ proponents from the very beginning and never answered. There are self-evident grounds for defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. I hate to be obvious, but we are faced here with a strange thing: the people who tend to be the sort to back ‘gay marriage’ are also the kind who think sex education–early and often–is a good idea. Yet these same people seem to be unaware of the fact that boys have penises and girls have vaginas; only one penis will fit in a vagina at a time, and when this happens, then sperm is ejaculated. If the sperm and the ovum meet and have a merry time –get this–an entirely new human will be created. These new humans we call children, or babies (if they are wanted; otherwise we call them fetuses, and we destroy them for any particular reason we desire). Up until recent technological advances, there was no other way for new humans to be made!
Forgive me for repeating this again, I need to make it as simple as possible, I am sure. I am certain that it seems to me that propriety and politeness has obscured certain facts: a penis inserted inside an anus will not create a new human. Two vaginas in close, physical proximity will not create a new human.
There is something entirely non-arbitrary and totally objective about the male-female sexual relation, having nothing to do with love, and everything to do with simple, basic, biological facts. When progeny is produced and brought to term, it must be cared for, else it will DIE. It has likewise been a confirmed fact of human nature that the two individuals deemed most obviously suited to raise particular children are the two individuals that created the particular children in the first place. We call them parents, and this new kind of relation, the Family. Again, this is what has gone on since recorded history.
I am not being mean, or unsympathetic, or uncaring, by pointing out these basic truths about REALITY. I have ‘religious’ views on this, but what I am describing is not in the least bit ‘religious.’ There is nothing arbitrary about this framework. The framework spontaneously emerges whenever a man and a woman have sex and a child is created. A child is never created when a man has sex with another man or a woman has sex with another woman.
We evidently live in a society where NO ONE UNDERSTANDS THIS. Or they chose to ignore the facts to suit their fantasy of their perfect world.
Ask yourselves, given these non-arbitrary REALITIES, on what possible basis could the government justify imposing itself on such a framework? Copulation, fornication, sex, f*****g, or what ever you want to call it, is going to happen whether the government gets involved or not. Individual men are going to seek out individual women, and monogamous relationships will form (hopefully lifelong) in which it will often be the case that new humans will be created, whether the state likes it or not. That is because I am talking about a reality that belongs to the order of creation. Marriage is not so much an institution as just the word we use to describe certain activities we observe, just like gravity is not an institution, but instead the word we use to describe what happens when the apple falls onto Newton’s head. You can re-define ‘gravity’ to mean “what happens when water boils” but there will still be the original phenomena, but without its own word to describe it.
Gays may eventually be given the legal right to ‘marry’ but whatever that means, it will have NOTHING to do with the original phenomena, which will still exist and will always exist. A new word will have to be invented to describe it, when we had a perfectly good word for it all along, but a ‘rose by any other name is still a rose.’ All this being the case, I have to ask again, what on earth does the government have to do with any of this?
Let us be pragmatic and lay out some probabilities: every once in awhile, the man or the woman or both will die, leaving their child to fend for itself–and possibly it will DIE. Who will take care of this orphan? The extended family would be the natural place to look, and this would normally work out, provided members of the extended family could be identified. In the real world (otherwise known as reality), a community may discover that there are children for whom no caregiver can be discovered, and not wanting to just kill the orphan (due to an overriding moral concept), has to do something.
Likewise, it is sometimes the case that the man or the woman will die, and there will be the matter of their belongings (not everybody has a will to avoid probate). What shall be done with them? Reality again, since everybody dies (at least once), here again is a probability that is going to happen whether there is a community (read: the government) or not. There are going to be belongings left over when people die. The extended family is going to be looked at, with the immediate descendents being the most obvious first place to begin: but these may not yet be old enough to manage the inherited estate.
These are all entirely probable concerns. Call me mean, or mean-spirited, or say that I lack empathy, or whatever else you want, and all it would mean is that YOU ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY. The problem is all YOU. I am not being mean or callous, or even narcissistic in the slightest by pointing out the non-arbitrary, objective (in other words, realities that exist apart from whatever I feel about them) aspects of REALITY. You can re-define things or call them whatever you want, but these realities are not going to disappear. Do you know why not? Because they are realities.
These probable concerns have historically been precisely the reason why the government has gotten involved in marriage and the family in the first place. Going back centuries there was common law that arose that reflected how various communities dealt with these issues, and eventually these were codified. I think, these concerns should never have been allowed to be codified at a any level beyond a county, maybe the state level, but certainly not the Federal government. The point is that it was because of disputed and/or abandoned and/or orphaned children and property that was the basis for government involvement in this question.
Another probability! How about relationships where no new defenseless humans are created (some couples for a variety of reasons do not have children)? What might be the basis for government interest then? What probable circumstances could conceivably occur to handle the property that, say, corporate law or inheritance law not cover? More to the point, are the people who will have to deal with the fallout from broken families be allowed to govern themselves? Or are they just going to be MADE to PAY, MADE to COMPLY, MADE to AFFIRM, whatever some Federal court or bureaucrat dictates? .
Back to SCOTUS and the court room. Bonauto attempts to answer Alito’s question:
- BONAUTO: I believe so, Your Honor.
JUSTICE ALITO: What would be the reason?
- BONAUTO: There’d be two. One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons.
Scalia replies, “Well, I didn’t understand your answer.” I can see why, the answer is practically incomprehensible; it should make us nervous if anyone did understand it. How does ‘coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships’ become part of this so called ‘family relationship’ given what they are proposing to do? Nonetheless, she is clearly stating the fact that it would be practically unworkable for the government to manage such a thing. Such as a scenario of how it is already unworkable to decide who should take care of a child, when it was carried to term by a surrogate mother paid for by two gay men who then go on to get divorced. Oh, a further complication, what if neither of the men provided the necessary sperm in the first place (perhaps due to fertility problems due to HIV) so that neither of them have a non-arbitrary connection to that child? How would any of this get sorted out in any sane, rational basis? Wait a minute, I forgot, I’m a bigot just for asking the question.
Strange thing though, her argument reflects precisely the same concerns that my argument does. Except maybe the “coercion and consent” thing. That is weird, here in America they are advocating violence to get permission.
So, Scalia and Alito press her, and finally she says:
- BONAUTO: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people.
Come on, she didn’t say that did she?
Let us get this straight. Bonauto is party to a lawsuit that has the specific purpose of overturning the results from the last time “the States” ‘rushed in’ and she says that the results won’t get any crazier because… “the States would rush in”!
One of the finest examples of liberal doublespeak (not the best but up among them) I have heard? We are not talking about some wayward reactionary response by some county government or an isolated state. The laws and amendments that Bonauto are hoping will be reversed were the result of the efforts of tens of millions of Americans, working their way through the tedious processes required in order to pass actual amendments to their state constitutions, etc. These very same people, she says, will–properly–preserve the ‘traditional’ understanding of “marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people.”
The abject stupidity of this argument, given what they are trying to do in their case, is absolutely mind-blowing. Go ahead follow the sign below:
The very thing that she wishes to overthrow is the thing she says will prevent increasingly creative relationships!
I wish that Alito or Scalia still had enough wit and common sense about them to have called attention to this lunacy. There would have been nothing left to say. End the hearing and go home. Their basic argument was the people have the right to govern themselves; which they did, and you expect that they will quite properly do again. You just would want them to have governed differently. How about YOU try to get your own legislation passed, instead of getting a handful of men and women (say, NINE) to do your dirty work for you in overthrowing what MILLIONS have concluded is proper.
Basically what we learn here is that her whole argument really amounts to, “We just don’t feel like those other kinds of relationships are legitimate, whereas we feel these particular ones are, so we’ll support government limitations on the former rather than the latter.” There is no, practicable, probable or principled reason for placing limitations on the former. Some future Bonauto can be expected to make this very point; indeed, with this kind of cognitive dissonance, this farfetched excursion into unreality, we can practically expect Bonauto herself to be the one to make that argument someday- maybe on her confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court in 2050.
Do we really have to take this seriously? Are we really going to utterly transform society and completely obliterate the legislative wills of millions of Americans on the basis of such superficially plausible, but actually wrong reasoning? Alas, it appears that this is precisely going to be the case.
Let me just say that in a contest between reality and what we wish is true about reality, reality wins every time. A society that has decided to live in fantasy-land is not a society that will be around for very long. Study history –and not the liberalized, radicalized version.
You hear arguments that no harm will come to the rest of us if gays are married. We already know that is wrong for a number of reasons that have already come to light (ie, people being put out of business), but it is wrong for another reason: a nation that is governed on feelings or fantasy is one that will be governed into idiocy. And the rest of us will have to pay the price for that incompetence just like everyone else will.
It’s time to grow up, friends. If you think you have an argument to make, then make it. Get your laws passed. Persuade your fellow man in your local community. Do not think you can change reality by calling the realists bigots. It won’t work, because reality is reality for a reason: it is reality.
[i] Mary L. Bonauto (born c. 1961) is an American lawyer and civil rights advocate who has worked to eradicate discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and has been referred to by US Representative Barney Frank as “our Thurgood Marshall.” She began working with the Massachusetts-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) organization in 1990.