MSM frames California Prop 8 debate incorrectly

Look back over the centuries at any culture you care to single out.  Was there ever a taboo against cohabitation of unrelated adults of the same gender?  Whether it’s military barracks, or university dorms, or monasteries, or convents, or private dwellings, I can think of no instance in which unrelated adult persons of the same gender were forbidden by culture to cohabitate.  Feel free to inform me if I’ve overlooked any such cultures that believed otherwise.

Undoubtedly, a study of history might reveal that there may have been occurrences of  homosexual activity within such environs, yet unrelated adults of the same gender still required no permission from society to cohabitate.

There have been taboos, though, against cohabitation of unrelated adult persons of opposite genders.  Hmm . . . I wonder why.  Could it be that cohabitation of unrelated adults of opposite genders is much more consequential to society?  After all, might such cohabitation lead to offspring?  And what are society’s responsibilities in regards to children?  Does it seem at all strange that society decided to regulate cohabitation among unrelated adults of opposite genders, considering what it might lead to?  So, to regulate cohabitation, an instrument that we commonly call “marriage” was devised by society.  Marriage regulated the cohabitation of unrelated adults of opposite genders, and it also served as a structure for the nurture of children.  Bastard children not born to such married couples were often stigmatized.  Even the word “bastard” has negative connotations.  Society has much more difficulty in defining its responsibilities for nurturing bastard children.  Thus, society devised taboos against cohabitation of unrelated adults of opposite genders and against occurrences of heterosexual activity outside the construct of marriage.  Marriage requires society’s permission.

Now we have activists who want government to peer into our bedrooms to determine whether we are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual so that we can inject more regulation into our households.  For some strange reason, we are now asked to regulate cohabitation of unrelated adults of the same sex by applying the construct of marriage to them, too.  These people never needed permission before.  Why do they seek such societal intervention now?  And if society intervenes to regulate such cohabitation by means of marriage, society must also intervene to regulate the breakup of such cohabitation by means of divorce.  Sounds like lawyers are the ones who stand to benefit the most.

But this is not how the MSM portrays the debate surrounding same-sex marriage.  This Associated Press article, written by Lisa Leff, is typical of how the debate is portrayed.

According to the MSM, opposition to same-sex marriage stems from religion.  Religion is portrayed as the boogeyman.  The MSM is apparently trying to stir up antipathy toward religion.  Did I mention religion in any of the foregoing paragraphs?  The MSM apparently doesn’t want an honest debate on the matter, because they are setting religion up to be a straw man.

Also, according to the MSM, denying same-sex marriage is a form of discrimination.  How so?  Marriage laws apply equally to all.  An adult may marry an adult of the opposite gender.  No adult may marry an adult of the same gender.  No exceptions are carved out for rich or poor.  No exceptions are carved out according to skin color.  No exceptions are carved out according to religious creed.  No exceptions are carved out according to sexual orientation.  Thus, the cry of “discrimination” has a hollow ring to it.

But proponents of same-sex marriage DO want exceptions carved out according to sexual orientation.  Proponents want special rights granted to those who aren’t heterosexual.  Beyond providing a marriage structure so that society can nurture the offspring produced through sexual relations between an adult male and an adult female, should government be prying into our bedrooms to categorize us as either being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual for the purpose of determining who gets special rights?  I think not, but the LGBT community would like to differ.  In past fights against anti-sodomy laws, the LGBT community told the government to stop prying into the bedroom, but these days, it seems the LGBT community has done an about-face, and frequently endeavors to parade their bedroom behavior in front of us while encouraging the government to categorize us according to our boudoir preferences.

The MSM also postulates that if same-sex marriage is not permitted, that laws against mixed-race marriage may emerge or resurface.  This unreasonable hypothesis is advanced by an MSM that views the African-American struggle for civil rights as a parallel to the LGBT crusade for special rights.  As I mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, society didn’t have taboos against cohabitation of unrelated adults of the same gender.  No government permission was necessary for persons of the same gender to cavort together within their domiciles.  How does that equate with an antebellum tyranny that didn’t even acknowledge that slaves of African descent were even human?  Has government ever designated that homosexuals are merely beasts or property?  The parallel does not exist.  At any rate, I am a Caucasian male who has been married (and divorced) twice.  My first marriage was to a woman who was a citizen of Japan.  My second marriage was to an African-American woman.  I am not at all fearful that such marriages will become illegal in the future if same-sex marriage is denied.  As I said before, as things currently stand, marriage laws are equally applied.

If the MSM were brutally honest, concerns over property and inheritance might be at the heart of the crusade to create same-sex marriages, in which case, I suggest that instead of beating around the bush, let’s have the legislatures address concerns over property and inheritance instead of trying to apply a marriage construct to a situation that it doesn’t fit.

In California, the people have spoken.  The future actions of California’s Supreme Court will illustrate whether we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, or whether the people will be overruled by a tyranny of elites determined to grant special rights to a population that can only be quantified by an invasion of our bedrooms.