He sees the bigger picture of it not really saving the Republic one way or the other, so why focus on it to just give people a reason to disagree with you on other subjects that actually do have something to do with saving the Republic…(if it can even be saved at this point).
Gays once wanted to be “out of the closet” and “the government out of their bedrooms”. That’s fine. No problem with that liberty. But when you now want the government schools to teach your lifestyle and have government re-define the institution of marriage, that’s another and opposite thing entirely. Gays can live together and make legal arrangements for such, but why must they insist on hi-jacking “marriage”, the definition of which has always been the union of one man and one woman?
“…why must they insist on hi-jacking ‘marriage’, the definition of which has always been the union of one man and one woman?”
Bullshit. For very long stretches of history in very many places, marriage meant (and still means) an arrangement between a man and one or more women’s families to confer inheritance benefits on his offspring with those women, while he was free to have sex with and cohabitate with more women and men so long as no resulting children got the estate.
Even for the first century of our republic, marriage meant a union between a man and a woman of the same race, in which the woman forfeited her independent legal rights to her husband’s household. Redefining marriage to extend equal protection to previously disenfranchised Americans is a long standing–and proper–trend in the United States.
You may think extending those rights to gay Americans is improper, but lets not pretend that marriage was an changeless, inviolable pillar of civilization before tey gays came along to redefine it. Like all human institutions, as the times have changed, it’s changed with them.
“Redefining marriage to extend equal protection to previously disenfranchised Americans is a long standing–and proper–trend in the United States.”
Could you give me an example when and how the one man-one woman legal institution of marriage has been redefined in the United States? Other than perhaps polygamy,to which you alluded: “an arrangement between a man and one or more women’s families to confer inheritance benefits on his offspring with those women”, I’m not aware.
But I suppose you would also include polygamists among those currently “disenfranchised”. And then you would have groups like NAMBLA who would feel disenfranchised by age restricitons, so I’m assuming you would also be inclusive of their views of marriage.
I suggest taking Beck with a grain of salt. He gives Americans 90% of true good information, but the 10% he covets protects the advancement of the neo conservative wing and the globalization that will remove what is left of our nation’s sovereignty.
“Could you give me an example when and how the one man-one woman legal institution of marriage has been redefined in the United States?”
You’ve missed the point. You’re picking out “one man one woman” as the eternal unchanged aspect of marriage, when in fact marriage has always been an institution with variable borders. Until the mid 20th century, people opposed to change could (and did!) say “marriage has always been between people of the same race here!” There’s no difference between Mildred and Richard Loving redefining marriage along race lines, and thousands of couples today asking to redefine it along sex lines. Each standard was a firm and unchanging hallmark of marriage in the US from its founding… Until it was changed. “We’ve always done it this way” is a wholely inadequate reason to deny people equal protection under the law.
And yes, families of more than two partners are disenfranchised in the United States. We don’t even get separate but equal. Sex with minors is a different matter entirely, as minors are considered functionally different from adults, and aren’t extended full equal protection. This is clear to everybody except folks who’re trying to make slippery-slope arguments about gay marriage. ðŸ˜‰