Sleep, sleep, sleep now

Please, please, please vote sensibly on Feb. 11th! Look to actual consequences: not merely sophomoric argumentations based upon sensation and not actuality. Write the Massachusetts legislature supporting marriage and family.

Stanley Kurtz on Gay Marriage on National Review Online

Marriage: A Word with Consequences

A few notes of my own:

We simply cannot arbitrarily reassign new meanings to words. To do so is tantamount to usurpation - not only of meaning, but of truth. Consider a baseball game. Were the umpire to call "out" every time he meant "safe," the game would be in total chaos. Words have meaning. Words are crucial. And although in their original formation there is some leeway, once they are set in definition and use they are not to be tampered with.

Ergo, the word "marriage" which has meant in whichever language one prefers the sacramental (lit. "set apart") union of one man to one woman for the purposes of drawing together exclusively and eternally which love is expressed in the procreation of children cannot be changed - particularly cannot be redefined to include something contrary to its very nature. I can no more say that "Love is Hate" than I can say "Marriage is Between Any People Cohabitating." Once again, marriage is exclusive and eternal for the purpose of bonding AND procreation.

I, myself, have been remiss in emphacising the second reason for marriage: pro-creation. In the recent well-meaninged attempt to appeal to the modern politically-correct masses by means of their own "newspeak" (see Orwell's 1984 right NOW), myself and others in the Church have stressed the unitive element of the conjugal embrace. And, certainly, the unitive aspect is crucial to marriage. But just as crucial and sadly underemphacised is the pro-creative element.

Almost, one might tout the pro-creative element of sexual union OVER its unitive properties, since whether the soul and mind are fully engaged in the conjugal act, certainly the body is - and the body knows only one way to function when men and women come together: that is, generatively. The pro-creative element is always in working order (barring barring devices, which are another subject altogether - for then the pro-creative act is stripped not only of its unitive function - bringing together the mind and soul of the man and woman - but also of its generative element, for the bodies are not even fully joined to create life let alone to fully physically realize one another: meaningless sex is the result).

Simply put, family cannot occur without a mother and a father. Note the use of the word family. For even should we "progress" (or rather, regress) to a Gattica stage wherein all children are by some means or another artificially created, yet a test tube baby is by its very generation without family. Moreover, putting aside such "petty concerns" as the childhood of a child, of the proposed orphaning of America, regardless the means necessary for generation of NEW individuals (as opposed to cloned individuals) comes not from two male sperm conjoining, nor two eggs conjoining, but from a man's sperm and a woman's egg conjoining. One need hardly point out Mother Nature's metaphor that only ONE sperm and ONE egg together make a baby (actually, if you get two sperm in one egg, things get nasty indeed for the baby; and if you want to talk about larger families one can always look at identical twins.... ;).

To put it even more simply: to have more babies, one man and one woman are needed. Period.

Yet, the ensuring of future generations, the creation of life itself within another individual human flesh of our flesh and yet completely unique, CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be undertaken apart from family. How many of my own students come from broken homes? How many of my own generation suffered the same? How many would not give up all they own if only they could claim for themselves a mother and a father to love them. And YES, a mother AND a father. For each gender has something wonderful and crucial to give to the child, something that cannot be given by another parent of the same gender. (Certainly, if we are to take the feminist battle cry we should demand that every human recognize the unique aspects of each gender and further demand that every child be given the benefit of being loved by both a mother and a father!)

The people who rally behind the "same sex marriage" laws tend to be - as far as I can see - people who are themselves longing for love in their own lives. This creates a curious dichotomy. For although the legal case is whether marriage ought to be redefined in order to provide health benefits for anyone cohabitating in the eyes of the state (a far cry from the definition of marriage - see above), yet the underlying push is based upon the idea that those with same-sex tendencies (whether by birth or by coersion) ought to be able to express their (temporally) exclusive although non-generative love publically with the same non-legal standing as other marriages. Let me state this more simply.

The legal disput (what we can vote on - what can actually be changed by law) is whether to redefine a pre-existing word (see above and reread 1984) for the convenience of health benefits.

The actual dispute (what cannot be voted on - what cannot be changed by law) is that all Americans ought to be forced to smile upon anyone who engages in sexual intercourse together.

Back in a minute. Gotta send out an e-mail!

...back in more than a few minutes...11:20 p.m. to be precise....

Clearly, law has no sway over the hearts of man. Only man has sway over his heart. I have no more right to force you to change your beliefs by law than you have the right to nullify my beliefs by law. The law holds a finite sway. When once we put man's souls within the realm of law, we have trespassed that tenuous boundary of church and state; we have, in fact, entered into the realm of tyranny.

Realising this, those who are pushing legally for same-sex "marriage" are wisely NOT mentioning the desired "legal change of belief" (over which the law should hold no sway, lest it contravene itself), but rather claiming the basis for their case a question of "civil rights legal benefits." This argument - since it is merely a straw man to push a totalitarian non-legal attitude - can be easily and peacefully refuted.

Those who are cohabitating desire the same health benefits as those who are married. Fine. The most obvious answer is not to redefine marriage (which is as helpful as redefining what a duck is to say it is a pigeon), but rather to turn an eye to the insurance agencies and demand that they allow anyone who cohabitates to share health benefits (which is more like saying a duck is a duck, a pigeon is a pigeon and we will feed them both). To argue health benefits DEMANDS that the case be brought to insurance companies, not to the altar (the homophonious irony of which ought not be lost upon the aural audience).

Curiously, the same sex "marriage" camp are NOT lobbying the insurance companies to ask for coverage for all who cohabitate, but rather are turning around completely and demanding that we redefine a WORD (another place where the law ought to have no sway, except to uphold the word and its meaning, since law itself is based upon the original meanings of all words - the true meanings and not invalid, unfounded and coercively convenient redefinitions. To redefine a word is tantamount to saying that the words by which one swears are arbitrary. Why should I not pledge allegience to the United States of America and mean the Confederacy? See the first point: words have meanings that are not to be altered).

The decision not to appeal to the pertinent party in question - that is the insurance companies - is another crafty move. Consider the proposal:

SSM Advocates: "All people who cohabitate together ought to receive the same health benefits."

Insurance Agency: "Whoa - ALL people who cohabitate? Do you mean 'cohabitate' as in having sex or 'cohabitate' as in 'living together'?" (See what I mean about words? Hamlet was right, my friends!)

SSMA: "Ah, well, we mean that whoever wants to live together ought to be given the same health benefits. What they do in their own beds is their own affair."

IA: "So you don't care if they have sex?"

SSMA: "Oh, no, sex is crucial. Yeah, whoever's living together and having sex together."

IA: "So you don't mean that we have to let daughters share health benefits with their parents, and vice versa."

SSMA: "Right. Save you a bundle that."

Impoverished Post-Collegiate Students Everywhere: "D*mn!"

IPCSE's Parents: "D*mn."

IA: "So it is important that the cohabitating people are having sex."

SSMA: "Yes, yes. Sex is very important. It expresses love."

IA: "But you just told me that what they do in their own beds isn't our affair. And love can be expressed in many ways - not merely sexual. What if two roommates of any gender combination you care to name are living together and demand health benefits? Because they're not related, are you demanding we give them insurance?"

SSMA: "Only if they're having sex."

IA: "But we can't know they're having sex. You just told us to stay out of it."

SSMA: "Ah...but those who are having sex will be...(drumroll)...married!"

IA: (coughing politely under one's breath) "Right. And married people have sex 24/7. Wish my wife knew that."

SSMA: "Sorry?"

IA: "Look, Miss...?"

SSMA: "Ms."

IA: "Ah. Let me propose to you a series of situations.

"In the case of marriage: the husband and wife's benefits extend to one another for a few practical reasons - first, because everything they have from finances to house to bed to life are conjoined. Eternally, mind you - or, we'd be much happier if they'd have the consideration to remember they vow "until death do us part" because it would help our record books enormously. Regardless, second our policy extends to all children resulting from this union until the children reach an age where they may support themselves. This encourages families, which as you know are the building block of all society, it secures not only the nation's future but - if I may be so crass as to mention it - our own company's future as well, and at the appropriate time it also forces the child to become self-reliant. Moreover, by extending benefits to the spouse, this policy encourages at least one parent to take care of their children - an attention which, I might add, is sorely lacking in today's society. In fact, as a businessman - and again, I beg you forgive my mercenary reasons, but I am attempting to speak to you without any bias but that which falls within the legal pervue - I must admit that I should be far happier were one parent dedicated to staying at home. These double income families, although certainly there are cases of necessity, are somewhat a drain upon the insurance company's pocket."

SSMA: "Ah! Well, then, you must at least agree that a lower population would be beneficial to your company! Encouraging same-sex coverage would be a good business move."

IA: "Quite the contrary. Although, yes, every child is a short-term 'drain' on our company, I see each child as an investment. My dear Ms., you must realize that I have been in this business for a very long time and intend to remain in this business for as long as I can. Each child is a future customer. You cannot deny me my customers! Moreover, Ms., you do realize that, if I were basing who received joint benefits based upon sex, each child is a reassurance to me that I have not been duped into extending coverage to those seeking to take advantage of a generous but - alas - essentially superfluous benefit. I heave a sigh again to say that as much as I esteem myself, their marriage is not based upon my insurance."

SSMA: "But what of those who take in foster children? Those children are not the result of their foster parent's sexual activity! Yet you benefit them!"

IA: "Future customers, future customers. Beyond which, am I to forget the children? You are heartless, Ms."

SSMA: "You are bigoted, sir."

IA: "I am as you find me - call me what you will. But I do not think the extension of benefits to children is the essential question here - unless, again, you would like to redefine 'cohabitation' to include any living together. Or, if you insist on sex as a fundamental requirement to my business practice (whilst, I remind you, barring me from the bedroom), then what is to keep me from extending coverage to siblings, so long as they are engaging in incest? Or for a father and a grown daughter the same? Or an aunt and a nephew? Certainly, they are cohabitating and engaging in sexual relations - am I to extend coverage on that basis?

SSMA: (recoiling) "Noooo!"

IA: "But whyever not? They meet your requirements. I shall even be generous: an uncle and his nephew."

SSMA: "NO!"

IA: "Your reason?"

SSMA: "Incest is wrong. It is evil. You cannot condone it."

IA: "Then there is right and wrong?"

SSMA: "Certainly."

IA: "And I am not only free to act upon such conscientious sentiment, but bound to do so?"

SSMA: "In cases of incest, yes."

IA: "So you propose to dictate to me the limits of my conscience? I may deplore incest for so long as you deplore it, but I may not act on my conscience when it does not suit your conscience? I had thought - or at least, I had been taught if I have not yet witnessed - that I lived in a country wherein I had the right to my beliefs, that I had the right to live according to my conscience?"

SSMA: "But you're a public official. You must do what the public demands and conscience be hanged - lest, as you say, you impose your beliefs upon those of different opinions."

IA: "I am a private businessman. And as such, my business is my own affair. When the state oversteps that boundary, we have a different set of questions altogether. But I agree - any man...or womyn...who can pay or have paid insurance is deserving of said insurance no matter what their creed. Whether I deem it right to extend gratuities is my own affair. No one can demand a gift. It is most unseemly. But I shall let your aversion to incest stay - and I hope it stays in your mind as in all our minds! May I ask - do you demand that I extend health benefits to those who are engaged in polyamory?"

SSMA: "Don't you mean polygamy?"

IA: "I should hardly be so sexist! Why should my sights be only on Colorado City with their late Prophet and his seventy wives? Why do you not demand that 'swinging' couples, 'communes,' and any orgiastic group be given benefits? I tell you plainly that the chances of these individuals requiring my aid to raise children - future customers - in a stable home is limited. As for the polygamists, I think we both agree that the practice is a degredation to women?"

SSMA: "Utterly."

IA: "So, to recap: by 'cohabitation' you mean small groups - perhaps only two people - who are having sex together in a long-standing relationship who are not related?"

SSMA: "Correct."

IA: "Well then, my dear, why the emphasis on 'marriage'? Unfortunately, I can think of many who live together outside of marriage for a significant time - who even have children together! Why am I not rewarding them? Well, as you no doubt guessed, because quite frankly your so-called 'traditional marriage' is better for my business. The risk of constantly shifting paperwork, not to mention the risk to my future customer's well-being, is simply too great for me to bother rewarding those who cannot take responsibility for their home lives. I must question the potential customer who is constantly in and out of relationships, who is afraid of commitment - will that customer remain faithful to me? Will he pay his bills on time? What proof has he given me that I should put my trust in him by extending a gratuity?"

SSMA: "But some same-sex couples stay together for a very long time."

IA: "Together with 'open relationships.'"

SSMA: "That is a generalization."

IA: "Unfortunately, Ms., it is a statistic."

SSMA: "But, were we to allow these same-sex couples to get married, they will stay together longer, and that can only be beneficial to you."

IA: "No - that brings me back to my original kettle of fish, and with Hamlet I shall decry that 'I know you, you are a fishmonger' and to exacerbate the point, 'something is rotten in the state of Denmark' - or at least in Scandanavia."

SSMA: "I don't appreciate your rudeness."

IA: "Pardon my frivolity - but this is a rather silly issue when looked at straight on. You demand gifts of me. You should be glad I am giddy."

SSMA: "This is a serious matter!"

IA: "Which is why I must laugh, my dearest Ms. If I do not, I shall cry. Let me mention the difficulties again. To whit:

"1) To allow a same-sex benefit will most likely NOT be a long-lasting benefit from my view of things. Consistently, we have seen that those in the homosexual lifestyle tend towards frequent sexual experimentation and exploration. To do so is practically part of the credo: freedom without restraint. Openness to all. I see no reason for this to change by slapping the name of 'marriage' on a relationship of standing. Were 'marriage' based on longevity, in this toppling nation I should be more inclined to reward friendship without sexual relations than intermittent cohabitation to prove a point.

"2) Likewise, the example of such 'open relationships' has - already - helped to raise the divorce rate among Americans. All this 'free love' nonsense is simply that: when I love (eros), I love exclusively. 'If I am to be truly free, I must be free to bind myself.' The only means whereby one can truly achieve 'free love' is to exclusively and eternally bind oneself to another, with no barriers of any sort between each other, but barriers around you both. Yet by usurping the word 'freedom' to mean 'freedom from' rather than 'freedom to' we have not taught our generation how to truly love (eros). I propose that the better recourse towards longevity within conjugal love would be a stricter adherance to the marriage vows - not a decimation of those vows.

"3) I simply cannot be sure that couples are engaging in sex if there are not offspring. Why should two friends of the same sex not be 'married' and receive benefits until they are 'divorced' and 'remarried' to someone with whom they will have sex? You tell me I must stay out of the bedroom, but you are forcing me into it!

"4) To promote same sex unions is tantamount to sounding a death knell for my industry. Children do not result from such relationships and my business thrives upon the sure knowledge that there will be another generation of customers.

"5) And perhaps most crucially: you are forcing me to act against the dictates of my own conscience, which is a violation of the rights granted me by the Constitution. Although you may argue that 'marriage is null and void because it has a quote-unquote religious base,' I must tell you that you would do well to study your history and learn that marriage has been defined as one man and one woman even in empires with ritualized homosexuality and without any sort of major religion recognized today, and that to state that a word is null and void because it comes from a religion that is not your own is the height of audacity. Honored Ms., you are very free to use words and do so - I see, much to my chagrin - effectively if not always linguistically correct. But when you pass judgement upon the philology of a word, you pass judgement upon the democracy of the dead who gave you that word. And, were you to adhere wholeheartedly no matter the consequence to your right belief that no bias must be shown to anyone OR anything based upon their creed, then you must admit your own ancestors to have the right to first define a new-coined word, despite their beliefs. Elsewise, Ms., you are a hypocrite - declaring that all men must honor each other's creeds until those creeds conflict with your own. And what is that, Ms., but coersion at its basest?"

SSMA: "And if I change the definition of marriage, sir? You are bound by law, unless you, too, are a hypocrite and all your fine words no more than stuffing to match your self-obesity!"

IA: "You may redefine. And what you will find is collapse. You do not merely mince words - a selection of random syllables - you play with the underpinnings and cornerstone of society. Look to your history, educated Ms. And see what happens when we change what is to match our fleeting pleasures." (12:47 a.m. - and must go to sleep!)

Mood: Exhausted
Music: Loreena McKennit Mask and the Mirror on repeat
Thought: Why does our society seek to obscure the obvious?
Silly Quiz du Jour:


create your own visited states map
or write about it on the open travel guide