Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Gay Marriage, Legally Speaking… Part II… The Slippery Slope

0

pedophiliaWhat many Americans sense instinctually is amiss with the gay marriage issue has to do with misconstruction of the law. It is abuse by the practitioners of the law that is giving many Americans pause here; if political operatives can manipulate the rule of law to satisfy one agenda, than they have the power to twist policy in any direction regardless of traditional and constitutional legal restraints.

The argument that people will marry animals is not legally sound, since animals are not considered to be mentally competent to sign contracts. The same argument applies to children — they are considered legal “incompetents” and therefore are prevented from being held to legal contracts until the age of majority.

clinton_story_1But here is where things get serious. There is a movement afoot, not just in some fringe groups like NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), but also in reputable sociological, psychological, and other academic circles, to lower the age of majority for children. Some advocates even approve abolishing the age of majority altogether. Their motives vary, but some pursue this for the purpose of “sexually liberating” children (i.e., they believe that society prevents children from enjoying their sexuality by labeling them as children and applying legal sanctions to those who would encourage that enjoyment), to others who believe that society is denying children the privileges of humanhood by labeling them as minors. In fact, early in her career, Hillary Clinton wrote extensively as a children’s advocate about the need to abolish the “minority status” of children, stating that doing so would be a great leap forward in line with “the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of married women.” “Children,” she wrote, “would be like other persons…masters of their own destiny…capable of exercising rights and assuming responsibilities until it is proven otherwise.” This movement towards liberating children from the right of their parents to make decisions on their behalf is often touted by state operatives under the guise of “children’s rights.”* The lowering or abolition of the minority status of children would allow them the same rights to engage in contracts as adults, including marriage contracts.

It is a fact that various organizations are now petitioning in various forums to have pedophilia recognized as a “sexual orientation.” Others are touting polyamory as “the new normal.” As I have predicted for years, court cases have already commenced seeking the state’s sanction of polygamous unions. Just google “legalize polygamy”

Many will scoff at this notion — “oh, that would never happen!” Of course, twenty years ago, that same response would have been evoked had anyone offered that someday gay marriage would be legal. In any event the end-game is the same and always has been – to attack the sanctity of the traditional family.

Licenses are bestowed by human beings through legal mechanisms because the people decide to recognize a status as a privilege. As such, they can be confined particularly to one kind of arrangement and not others. Therefore, if a community through its citizenry agrees to recognize gay marriage, because it is a privilege and not a right, they can confine the licensing to gay marriages only while legally excluding other marital combinations.

Another by-product often not considered by those lured into advocacy of gay marriage by virtue of the feel-good mantra of “equality” is that this subjects gay couples to identify themselves to the state, which they are encouraged to trust with this intimate knowledge. But once the government knows who they are, will it always be so benevolent? The government might indeed appear friendly to this status now, but governments are notorious for persecuting their own citizenry when unrestrained by the rule of law. Anarchic systems normally give way to political voids that are filled with authoritative systems. Is it impossible to consider that the system they trust to protect them now might not someday use this information and turn against them?

Most Americans don’t care what consenting adults do when they are alone, but they feel nevertheless that something regarding the gay marriage issue is just not right. They just can’t put their finger on it.

What many Americans instinctually sense has to do with misconstruction of the law. It is abuse by the practitioners of the law that is giving many Americans pause here; if political operatives can manipulate the rule of law to satisfy one agenda, then they have the power to twist policy in any direction regardless of traditional and constitutional legal restraints.

Can you say slippery slope?

*Hillary Clinton, “Children Under the Law,” 1973, and Children’s Rights: Contemporary Perspectives (1973)

Send this to a friend