Over at Volokh, Jonathan Adler opines about “Single Sex Marriage”. His comment in favor of SSM demostrates why I’ve come to oppose it:
I believe that the institution of marriage and its associated blessings should be shared with same-sex couples.
It’s a perfect example of “people unclear on the concept.” Society doesn’t give benefits to heterosexual marriages because heterosexuals “deserve its blessings”, society rewards and benefits heterosexual marriage because heterosexual marriage is what makes our society possible, and is why our society survives. Heterosexual marriage, and the children those marriages produce, are what create the next generation, especially the productive and functional part of it. As such, heterosexual couples have earned the benefits and rewards.
The one thing you never hear from “defenders” of SSM is how those relationships will benefit society. It’s always “gimme, gimme, gimme.” It’s always about what they should get, and never about what they’ll give the rest of us in exchange. As such, I’ve come to two conclusions:
- Anyone who goes into a marriage thinking “it’s all about me” is nto going to have a functional marriage. Since that’s all we hear from the supporters of SSM, I expect the SSMs to be sad, pathetic joke versions of real marriages.
- Since not all of the defenders can be idiots, if SSM really did offer provable benefits to society, we’d be hearing about them. Since we’re not, the rational assumption is that SSM does not provide such benefits, and therefore rational people should oppose SSM. This is because it’s wrong to give people rewards that they haven’t earned, and therefore don’t deserve. If for no other reason than it cheapens the value of the reward for the people who actually have earned it.
Then there are the idiot commentors to the post. Let’s be clear here: The people of California voted, in 2000, by a large majority, that there is no such thing as single sex marriage. 4 worthless scum who happen to sit on the CA Supreme “Court” decided to re-write the CA State Constitution and invent a Constitutional “right” to SSM. CA voters now have a chance to overturn that “judicial” usurpation of power, with a Proposition on the November ballot.
It is not possible to be a decent human being, and oppose that Proposition.
You think there should be SSM? Great. Then put it on the ballot, and get the people to vote it in. Or, if you live in a State tha doesn’t have voter approved Propositions (or that does have them, but where the voters haven’t already ruled on the subject), feel free to try to get the Legislature to vote SSM into existence. But when you claim that something that has never before existed in history is in fact a “right”, or when you defend others making the same claim, you are displaying a fundamental dishonesty that marks you as complete and utter scum.
You do not have the right to get your own way, not matter how strongly you feel about it. You have the right to bring things to The People, and you have the right to try to get them to agree with you
You do not have the right to do an end run around them when they don’t agree with you.