The purpose of the government's preferential treatment of the traditional marriage relationship is to foster the natural relationship between a man a woman to raise children and form a stable society. [1] The relationship between a man and a woman to create life is unique amongst all other relationships. As it propagates the species of human beings, it is the natural state of human life and continued human existence. If one of the parties in the relationship cannot physically provide the components for human life, they are still patterned after the natural state of the relationship.

Technology has created the means whereby a woman can have the needed ingredients of a man to whom she has no relationship placed in her to create a child. Although a male is required for the child to be created. This is an unnatural relationship only to the extent that absent current technology, such a procedure would not be possible.

A same gender relationship cannot produce a child. Therefore this relationship is unequal to a male + female relationship.
  • Male + Female = Child

  • Male + Male ≠ Child

  • Female + Female ≠ Child

The relationships are thus unequal in terms of being able to produce a human being. The one being the natural state of the human relationship, the other being unnatural. This inequality has been established by nature, evolution, or in my belief, by God.

This inequality by nature is the reason the government has fostered, through favorable laws, the male + female relationship, aka marriage.

Technology originally designed to help a male and female incapable of having children, has been used by single females, and same gender relationships as a back door to becoming "equal" with the male + female relationship. Two women who want to have a child can now have a child. Note however that a man was and always will be part of the process.

Technology has allowed the human race to participate for the first time in history, in unnatural relationships that can closely, but not fully mimic the male + female relationship. The governments favorable treatment of the male + female relationships is now viewed by those attempting to mimic it, as discrimination against unnatural relationships.

As we have already discussed the traditional male + female relationship, it should be noted that the government prohibits certain male + female relationships from being legally recognized and worthy of favorable treatment. Such relationships involve a male + female relationship where the parties are blood relatives.

Current California law prohibits, (or in the view of those attempting to mimic that natural male + female relationship, discrimination against) the following marriages (the following quotes are straight from California law):

2200. Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning, whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate.

Section 300 and 301 of the California code deal with persons under the age of 18 and the recognition of marriage. The current law regarding marriage also includes:

308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Theoretically a male + female relationship where the two parties are a male and female of the same mother, could join in the natural state as described previously to create a child. The government will not recognize such a relationship with the bestowal of favorable treatment.

In terms of the natural state, this male + female relationship is more natural than the same sex relationship as a child can be produced. Yet the state prohibits such action. For what reasons would the marriages of such parties listed in 2200 be prohibited from being recognized by the state? If a same gender couple is in favor of receiving favorable treatment from the government for the unnatural state of their relationship, they cannot logically be opposed to favorable treatment and recognition of a blood brother and sister relationship (or any mentioned in 2200) which is more natural than their own union.

It is important to realize the governments refusal to acknowledge same gender marriage is not discrimination. Women can give birth, men cannot, they are inherently different. Two men cannot produce a child. Two women cannot produce a child. To bestow the same favorable treatment to people who cannot produce what the other can is to disadvantage those who produce and treat the producers unfairly.

Four theories of thought or courses of action could be followed:

  1. Rescind all laws that treat any person or relationship as being unequal. The implementation of such a denial would invalidate most social programs or income redistribution programs, progressive income taxation, tax laws catering to specific groups or income levels, ect. (aka dramatically reduce the size of government).

  2. Affirm the favorable treatment and bestowal of continued rights upon the natural male + female relationship. (aka amend the Constitution as proposed).

  3. Grant favorable treatment and bestowal of rights to same sex relationships reserved for the natural male + female relationship. Since the favorable treatment was designed to foster the raising of children in the natural state, additional rights for acts which cannot be accomplished in the unnatural state are being bestowed. (This would be akin to me receiving additional battlefield pay reserved for soldiers in combat, even though I am neither in the military nor in a combat environment.)

  4. Something I haven't even thought of or considered...

Therefore, the courts ruling of May 15, 2008 which overturned the will of the people of California as expressed in Prop. 22, on the basis of discrimination is invalid. The people have a right to petition their government and overturn the court's ruling by the constitutional amendment process. The current amendment as proposed for the November 2008 ballot reads:

Section 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

If the people of California become opposed to the amendment to the constitution affirming the common definition of traditional and natural marriage, they can amend the constitution to recognize otherwise. Using the courts (for judge shopping) to declare discrimination when none exists, and thus pass laws that give favorable treatment to same gender relationships violates the principles of a constitutional republic form of government.

NOTE: I did not discuss the following principles in this discussion that do have a major impact on my reasoning and point of view.

  1. The government should only be involved in marriage to resolve breech of contract issues (i.e. divorce and its implications with property and children). Marriage is a religious ceremony. Would you condone government approved baptism?

  2. Marriage is universally defined by all peoples and cultures as a union of men and women. This is the definition of the word. The state begins to walk in shady territory when it begins tampering with the definitions of language. In my view there is no contest as to what marriage is. If the people want to change the definition of marriage they would have to amend the constitution to read that marriage is defined as the union of two consenting adults regardless of gender. I doubt the people would pass an amendment condoning same gender marriage. Which is exactly why those in favor go judge shopping.

  3. I have not discussed my religious views in this article.

  4. Getting back to my everlasting hatred dislike of income taxation, the type of social engineering that takes place through income taxation is one of the points (by those in favor of same gender marriage) as evidence of discrimination. A married man and woman receive favorable tax treatment, a same gender union does not. Same gender couples have an argument. Yet another way income tax is the root of many evils in our society.

[1] - The government treats the male + female relationship of traditional marriage preferentially by allowing the following:

  • Joint parental rights of children

  • Joint adoption

  • Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions

  • Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains

  • Immigration and residency for partners from other countries

  • Crime victims recovery benefits

  • Domestic violence protection orders

  • Judicial protections and immunity

  • Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will

  • Public safety officers death benefits

  • Spousal veterans benefits

  • Social security

  • Medicare

  • Joint filing of tax returns

  • Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children

  • Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children

  • Child support

  • Joint insurance plans

  • Tax credits including: child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits

  • Deferred compensation for pension and IRA's

  • Estate and gift tax benefits

  • Welfare and public assistance

  • Joint housing for elderly

  • Credit protection

  • Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

According to Lamda Legal Defense fund, these are just of few the hundreds of benefits afforded to married couples. Many of the items listed above are also granted under current domestic partnership laws.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Satan will always attack the nature of God and His children and that is why we see marriage between a man and woman under constant attack. (Infidelity, etc.) And now, even it's definition is being questioned. Satan creates chaos and confusion. That's the kind of environment he likes in order to "get things done".