The Myth of the Same Sex Marriage Mandate (Part II)

Editors note:  This is  the second in a series of articles (Part I is here) about same sex marriage.  The author, Doug Mainwaring, is a principled conservative residing in Montgomery County, MD who is gay.  He is a cofounder of National Capital Tea Party Patriots and his commentaries regarding the Tea Party movement and conservative issues have appeared in The Washington Times, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, Wall Street Journal, American Thinker and others.

Over the last few weeks Doug testified in Annapolis before the Maryland Senate Judiciary Committee and the House of Delegates Joint Committee (Judiciary and Government Operations) Hearing in opposition to same sex marriage, and spent many days lobbying individual legislators as well.

The big question which this series seeks to answer is:  “Who is really behind the push for same sex marriage and what is their motivation?”  The answer may surprise you.

Here is a link to a recording of Gov. Martin O’Malley’s testimony and Doug’s opposing testimony before the Maryland Senate Judiciary Committee on January 31 regarding the Same Sex Marriage legislation.  (The Governor speaks during the first two minutes or so then Doug for the final 2 minutes — just click on “in this podcast”).

Part II

What’s the rush?

In late November, New York State Judge Robert Wiggins roundly criticized Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Administration for riding roughshod over the legislative process as it sought to bring about passage of same sex marriage legislation last June. “It is ironic that much of the state’s brief passionately spews sanctimonious verbiage on the separation of powers in the governmental branches, and clear arm-twisting by the Executive on the Legislative permeates this entire process.”

The New York Daily News reported: “In issuing what’s
known as a ‘message of necessity’ that allows for a quicker vote,
Cuomo had written that continued delay would deny more than
50,000 same-sex couples critical protections afforded to
heterosexual couples.

“‘Logically and clearly this cite by the governor is disingenuous,’
Wiggins wrote. “The review of such concept, altering legislation for three days
after generations of existing definitions, would not so damage same sex
couples as to necessitate an avoidance of rules meant to ensure full review
and discussion prior to any vote,” (Nov. 29, 2011).

In the half year since same sex marriage became law in New York, only a small fraction of those 50,000 have availed themselves of this right which the Governor swore was so urgent to establish. So why did New York’s Democratic Governor insist that same sex marriage is a vital interest to his state?

The heart of the issue is not concern for the welfare of gays and lesbians. Nor is the motivation to secure civil rights. The goal is to dilute the definition of marriage and in so doing, weaken the institution of marriage.

Statists see great value in slowly chipping away at the bedrock of American culture: Family life.    The more that familial bonds are weakened and religious beliefs are undermined both in our daily experience and as a matter of legality, the more Government is able to freely insert itself into our lives in an authoritarian way.

The meaning of marriage is immutable

Marriage is a term which belongs to the union of heterosexual couples. It cannot be arbitrarily applied to other relationships except in a metaphoric way. To bifurcate the term into “traditional marriage” and “gay marriage” is to cede reason and intellect beyond the bounds of our shared multi-millennial social compact.

Marriage is marriage — an immutable concept proven by society’s renewal from generation to generation. Marriage is not the same as other types of relationships. For thousands of years marriage has served as society’s building block. It is the framework for human existence that leads to human flourishing. At the outset of the 21st century we should not be so quick to redefine it.

Ensuring a better future for our children and grandchildren is more important than our generation’s desire to make history. Many landmark changes in our country’s laws have had unintended consequences with severe negative impacts on generations of children. For instance, no fault divorce and the expansion of the welfare state have diminished family life, especially for minorities and the poor, while multiplying the number of either broken homes or fatherless families. Nowadays, 40% of all births in the U.S. are to unwed parents. That number is stunning. More stunning is the fact that 70% of black children are born to unwed mothers. Doesn’t this indicate that our attention should be focused like a laser beam on strengthening, not redefining, marriage — an institution that has been unraveling for decades — to the detriment of children?

“If the state cannot uphold a traditional view of marriage
because it lacks the moral warrant to do so, how can it then, in turn,
uphold a controversial progressive view of marriage? . . . taken to
its logical conclusion, (this) seems to lead not to an acceptance of
same sex marriage, but to the abolition of a public recognition of
marriage altogether,” (John Locke and the Evangelical retreat from
Marriage, by Micah Watson, Public Discourse: Ethics, Law and
the Common Good).

Sound far fetched? White House “Regulation Czar,” Cass Sunstein, proposes an end to government recognition of marriage. “Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government . . . . the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people . . . Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage . . . “ (Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness, Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein, 2008.)

This is the (mostly) unstated objective of our nation’s liberal intelligentsia: The dissolu- tion of marriage altogether, through the progressive dismantling of the structures of family life, resulting in a higher dependency on government by individuals and struggling family units.

Could there be a more cynical proposition, divorced from tradition, religion and history? Think of it: With family ties weakened or obliterated, each individual’s most intimate, trusting relationships and authority figures would be the agencies of the government assigned to his or her care.

The gay community is not the driving force behind same sex marriage. Who is? Liberal elites who seek to engineer our society, who feel they could create a utopia if only people weren’t so tied to their families, to their religion, to their traditions and beliefs. These are the same folks who don’t care whether or not citizens enjoy a personal relationship with their doctors, who believe medical care should flow from and be controlled by govenment.

Those who seek sweeping transformational change are manipulating gays and lesbians to increase their own power and authority in all of our lives.

Next:  Suppression of opposition to redefining marriage by statists through organizations such as Equality Maryland and The Human Rights Campaign.

Editors note:  I will be away for a few days, Part III will be posted by Monday.  If you are commenting and don’t see your comments immediately, I will get to them as soon as I have access to a computer.

Update:  Part III is here.