Normally, I don’t like to go into politics here, but this is one of those areas where there is a tie between Christianity and politics. Interestingly, politics was originally about producing a good state. Today, it seems to be just about producing a state and often, goodness has nothing to do with it. In fact, it seems the antithesis of politics.
I have here an article from the DrudgeReport on the decision:
For all who are interested, The Connecticut State Constitution can be found here:
I found this decision not surprising, but very depressing. Especially since the reasoning behind it is nonsensical. Consider this from the first article.
“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.
What equal protection principles though? Perchance there are more, but I am wondering what one is being protected from in this case. Is the report wishing to say that all people are equal? In a sense, they are, but in a sense they are not, and this is a very fine distinction that must be made if we are to understand what is going on.
I can look at our government easily and say that based on our Constitution, that we believe all men are created equal. That is equal in ontology though, that is, our nature. We are all fully human. No one is 99% human. Everyone is 100% human. That’s what humanity is. You either are human or you don’t. Now you can act ways that are or are not humane, but you cannot change your ontology.
We all know that men and women are different though. Blacks and whites are different, but not in ontology. There are some diseases black people are more prone to and there are some white people are more prone to. This is not a racist statement. This is simply a matter of fact. To point out a difference in race is not to be a racist.
We also know the sexes are different, and we should all be thankful for that. (This single guy definitely is.) Not only in their reproductive systems, but in other ways men and women are different. A Harvard president had to step down for saying men might be better at certain things than women. There was a huge outcry from the world but one question was never asked. “Was what he said true?” Well if it was, then it’s true. There are things women are better at than men. That’s not sexism in any way. It’s simply truth. If you said women are less human for what they can’t do as well as men, then that would be sexist, and vice-versa.
Also in our world, everyone has equal rights. That is, there are some things that people are not allowed to take from you within reason. You have a right to liberty, but that doesn’t mean you have the liberty to go rape a girl you find attractive. Note also you have a right to the pursuit of happiness. You do not have a right to happiness. The government is not entitled to make you happy. They are just to protect you in your pursuit of it.
Homosexuals don’t want the same rights though. They want different rights. They want a right that others don’t have and that is the right to marry someone of the same sex. That has not been observed because of what sexual intercourse is. It is the method whereby the human race continues and if you are a homosexual in union with another homosexual, that is not going to happen. Homosexuals do not reproduce together. It is not because a part in the system is broken, such as in the case of sterile parents, but it is because the system itself cannot bring about that function.
What we are doing is a dangerous activity. We are re-defining what the world is to suit our purposes, including what marriage is. If you have the right to marry who you wish, then how long until someone says they want to marry their sister? Why can’t NAMBLA get to have what they want? How long will it be before Mormon women have to start dealing with polygamy again?
Ultimately though, I believe the problem is much deeper. Homosexual marriages will strike at what it means to be a man and a woman. They will be seen as interchangeable in their most unique area and in the end, we will have male and female be simply social constructs. There is no objective male or female nature. Society simply creates that idea.
Well why can’t society just construct human nature then and re-define what it means to be a human?
And when we do that, won’t some people be ruled out by definition?
Either we will bow ourselves to reality or we will try to re-create reality after our own desires. The latter is a dangerous game no one has ever survived.
I don’t think we’ll be the first.