Defending Marriage…Why?

Qween Amar  It has never been a matter of ‘rights,’ it has always been a matter of responsibility.  Just ask Qween Amar (seen wearing his chiffon tu-tu in the picture).

  Recently, in arguments heard at the US Supreme Court, many opinions were expressed over the terms of marriage, equality, and right.  Little was heard about the term responsible behavior.  Sadly, marriage, equality, and ‘rights’ are all about responsible behavior. Justice Alito asked simply ‘when was marriage first legislated, 1868, 1791? When?.’ It wasn’t.  The idea predates any United States.  Justice Kennedy, who is often called the ‘swing judge’ usually because his convictions keep swinging in the breezes of prevailing politics instead of the Constitution, said it best.  ‘This was never a federal question. This is an area of State responsibility.’  So true, but it was the federal courts agreeing to hear a case involving a clearly defined state issue in the first place that made it a federal question. Irresponsible federal intervention caused this problem. 

  Marriage was NEVER about religion.  Marriage was ALWAYS about civil responsible behavior in a community.  It was how communities insured moral, ethical, and even yes responsible behavior of its members.  Marriage was about support, parenting, and good order and discipline in a society.  It was about who paid the bills for the civil partnership and its results.  It was about rules of behavior that were for the good of the community, society.  Incest, inbreeding, and what are now called social diseases were not, shall any one dare to say, prevalent around the time that the term marriage was first used.  Males and females partnered to breed.  They had children the, even then, old fashioned way, one man impregnating one female in a natural way.  There were no test tubes, turkey basters, surrogates, or donors.  There were also clearly known responsible partners, and supporters.  Communities knew who to hold accountable for the offspring. 

  There were no issues about equality.  Men were men, women were women and societies clearly understood the rules that they set for themselves.  Communities knew that Fathers should not breed daughters and that mothers should not breed with their sons.  They also knew that homosexuality could not lead to any children.  Communities also knew that homosexuality lead to many disease related deaths not seen in male and female relationships.  There were reasons that societies formed these taboos against certain behaviors.  They were inherently irresponsible behaviors that were not good for the community.  Religions adopted these practices and taboos from civil society rather than religions foisting these taboos onto society.

  The responsible action is for the court to dismiss this court challenge.  It should further vacate any and all federal court rulings concerning marriage, and dismiss any current federal challenges of the question of marriage in any federal court.  This is a state question.  It is also a question for states to determine what is moral and ethical within state boundaries.  Irresponsible sex and breeding is still not in the best interests of any society.  Inbreeding is a health issue, as is homosexual sex (just check with the National Institutes for Health and the Centers for Disease Control if you question that).  Child support, role modeling and responsible parenting are still sorely needed in this country.  So is responsible parenting and social behavior.

About Charles Carroll

I am a wealthy planter, originally from Maryland, and an early advocate of independence from Great Britain. I served as a delegate to the Continental Congress and later as United States Senator for Maryland. I was the only Catholic and last surviving signatory of the Declaration of Independence.
This entry was posted in Media and Reporting. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Defending Marriage…Why?

  1. Goose says:

    While I agree with much you have written here, I do not agree that same sex marriage is an example of irresponsible behavior. Who does it hurt if two of these odd people choose to live together? Let’s face facts it is very unlikely that they will enter into a happy stable relationship with someone of the opposite sex that will add to the community. There really is no reason to assume that a pair could not serve as adoptive parents. The civil act of adoption would fix the responsibility toward the child. [It strikes me as sexist and unreal that you would assume that the male paid the bills for the civil partnership, modern law holds that each partner pays according to their ability. In short I don’t care if people I interact with are gay, married or not unless they make it an issue. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” seems like a good approach to me.

  2. Mike says:

    How disingenuous. Homosexual sex is not a health issue. It’s an excuse, no a lie, made by those who want to pretend that their obsolete moral view is not based on religion.

  3. Ben says:

    What an absolutely unqualified comment/response. You clearly have no informed idea upon which you base your comment. CDC has known for over 20 years and you would too had you become informed. Male homosexual behavior shortens expected life spans by decades, mostly to disease and AIDS is not the primary killer. Lesbian lifespans are likewise shorter just not to the same extent. So, don’t foist your ignorance of actual facts with your perceived understanding of rhetorical factoid. A population of <2% of the whole should not be able to dictate anything.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s