Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Friday, August 04, 2006

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

The fringe-dwellers over at Coathangers don't seem to like my post that the whole argument against the marriage amendment on the basis it might affect heterosexuals is a straw man. They're good at the "but what if..." "but what if..." games that children like to play, but as people mature they begin to understand that you don't build policies, procedures or laws based on a bunch of wild-eyed but-what-ifs.

Their arguments continue to ring hollow because they just don't hold water in the real world. These red herrings they bring up are simply an effort to gain the sympathy of good people who otherwise wouldn't touch their anti-marriage crusade with a ten foot pole.

They're really just the rantings of people who want to live dangerously, but be insulated from the harm that can come from their recklessness. And they always want to rob or tear down something else in order to try and stand a little higher on their soggy ground.

Their pleas for additional protections for an illegitimate relationship are like going swimming in a river somewhere, running into trouble, then suing the state or federal government because they didn't provide a lifeguard.

It's like driving your car at 120 MPH and after having run into a guardrail and getting yourself paralyzed from the neck down, suing the state because they should have had police on hand to stop you from driving that fast...or they should have had medical personnel immediately on hand to help you, instead of having to call them in from a hospital miles away.

When you choose to live your life outside of legitimate parameters, you assume a certain level of risk. We humans have known (and pretty much accepted) for thousands of years that marriage provides certain benefits and protections. Why? Well, God established it for one thing, making it the natural order. We also recognize it as the basic building block of civilization, providing for division of labor while raising children, a stable environment for raising children, and providing a balance of gender role models for both male and female children.

When we live outside the conventions and commitments of marriage, naturally basic human rights should still apply. But a different mode of living requires a different manner of protections. It's disingenuous to provide the same protections and benefits to situations that don't constitute marriage, that you provide for marriage itself. Firemen get special suits to wear around at work--should I get one because I'm a computer programmer? Cops get a car to drive around and a gun to carry at work--should I get a car and gun because I'm a receptionist?

Then why should we give the rights and benefits of marriage to relationships (both homosexual and heterosexual alike) that don't constitute marriage? Answer: beyond basic human rights, we shouldn't.

That's where law enforcement prosecution of assault comes in. If you want any additional benefits that the label "domestic assault" may provide, then get yourself into a domestic situation by getting married; otherwise, file assault charges on the dirtbag.

The same goes for power of attorney situations. If you're eligible to get married, then get married. If you're not eligible to get married, then think ahead and get a power of attorney and any other required legal provisions. I may need legal procedures to be able to take care of my parents as they age, but it's disingenuous and demeaning to marriage to equate even the parent/child relationship with the marriage relationship. And if my parents and I don't take care of these matters ahead of time, then we have no one to blame but ourselves if an emergency arises and we find ourselves in a difficult situation. The state shouldn't have to cater to stupidity and laziness, and undermine the meaning and sacredness of marriage in the process.

In the end, it goes back to the same old liberal predilections: they want to be completely insulated from the consequences of unwise or bad decisions. And while we can throw lots of other people's money at problems to try and do that, and we can get a bunch of liberal judges to make up their own laws to try and do that, the laws of the universe catch up to us sooner or later. And ultimately, we'll all face the Creator and Judge of this universe we all live in...and liberal attempts to evade consequences won't amount to a hill of beans with Him.


0 comments:

 
Clicky Web Analytics