- The Annihilation of Marriage-Part One
- The Annihilation of Marriage- Part Two
- Legalizing homosexual marriage impairs unalienable right
- Scalia Indicts Windsor Decision’s Intentional Bias
- Scalia’s Windsor dissent: Deficient in principle?
- U.S. Judge discards unalienable right of marriage
- Liz vs. Mary: How Both Cheneys Mistake the “Gay Marriage” Issue
- The flaw of Judge Allen’s precluded muddle
- Enslaved by mammon: Brewer, GOP elitists abandon unalienable right
- The elitists’ war on human nature
- Family ties and the natural basis for property
- Legally Institutionalizing homosexuality threatens America’s rights and liberty
In its opinion contending that homosexuals may have an equal right to marry, the Iowa Supreme court takes the position that the understanding of equal rights evolves. Rights are therefore artificial constructs that reflect changing societal norms. Even if this contention were true, it would not explain how, in a society based on the sovereignty of the people, the task of changing the laws to reflect that evolution falls to the judicial branch of government, which has no lawmaking power. Why is it rational to conclude that a handful of judges catering to the feelings of a small minority of the people reflect changed norms more accurately than the elected representatives of the people?
Of course, the court’s opinion purports to respond using the argument that, with respect to the unalienable rights of their humanity, even a small minority of the people may claim protection against the unjust will of the majority. This correct reasoning was the basis for overturning laws that established racial discrimination. But the concept of unalienable human rights relies upon an understanding of right or justice promulgated by a permanent authority existing beyond human power or agreement, and therefore beyond changing societal norms. So the doctrine that rights are evolving artificial constructs, which the court cites to justify the homosexuals’ equal right to marry, contradicts the doctrine of unalienable rights on which it relies to justify its rejection of the existing marriage laws properly enacted by the State legislature. The court’s opinion treats unalienable rights as if they are merely conventional (that is, based on changeable human agreement), but then purports to defend them against existing law (which reflects the prevalent conventional opinion of the people of Iowa) as if they are not. In order properly to defend the claim that homosexuals have an unalienable right to marry equal to that of heterosexual couples, the court would have to show that they are in some fashion inextricably involved with the preservation of human existence or identity, understood without reference to conventional views. The Iowa court’s opinion fails even to address this logical requirement. It therefore falls prey to absurd self-contradiction.
What the Iowa court fails to do with respect to artificially construed homosexual marriage rights can easily be done when we turn away from artificial fabrications to the simple facts of nature. The preservation of humanity depends upon procreation. Procreation cannot take place without the presence and participation of male and female elements of humanity. It is right to preserve humanity. Those who act with respect for this right have the right to do so. Society establishes the institution of marriage to acknowledge and codify its respect for this right and the subsidiary rights that flow from it (e.g., the authority of parents over their children, the nature and duration of the subordination of children to this authority, the obligations of parents toward their children, etc.).
Because the preservation of the species is self-evidently an aspect of preserving the existence and identity of all the individuals that comprise it, the right connected with procreation is an unalienable right. Any society that fails, in its institution of government, to respect this right, departs from the standard of justice that determines the purpose of that institution. (“To secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….”) But since justice is the end or aim of civil society, such a society also violates the understanding on which civil society itself is based. Respect for justice compels the individuals thereby deprived of their right (i.e., their opportunity to do what is right) to disregard and resist this violation, and to continue in their right course of action. If force is used to impose it, the right of self-preservation requires that they resist, so that civil society gives way to war and conflict.
It turns out that, while speciously claiming to defend the fabricated rights of homosexual individuals the Iowa supreme court opinion violates the most fundamental right of society (civil peace secured by respect for unalienable right), as well as one of the most obvious rights of all individuals (the right to do what preserves humanity.) The judges camouflage this egregious and ultimately violent abandonment of right with a discussion that dwells on the incidental feelings and emotions of homosexuals while ignoring the disposition and inclinations of humanity in general. But in so doing, they casually perpetrate an atrocious violation of individual rights as well.
Every child conceived and born in the context of a homosexual “marriage” represents a biological parent cut off from the opportunity to do what is right by his or her offspring. The relation between parent and child is the natural paradigm of all belonging. On account of a fact that in no way depends on human power or agreement, the child belongs to the parent and the parent to the child. The fabrication of homosexual marriage casually deprives both parent and child of this natural belonging, perpetrating a criminal theft that strikes not only at individuals, but at the very concept of ownership (and therefore of property) for which their mutual belonging provides the natural pattern.
The fabrication of homosexual marriage thus represents an assault against the conceptual basis of the rights of property. If, on account of the bond derived from the production of life itself, there arises no unalienable right of belonging, what other form of labor or production can give rise to such a right? This means that the right of property must be regarded as purely conventional, subject to the imposition of whatever happens to be the prevalent force of opinion at the moment. But if individuals have no belongings beyond determination by this human force, what becomes of their claim to possess unalienable rights that that must be respected by human laws and governments?
In light of these reflections we realize that it is no accident that the definitive push to impose homosexual marriage takes place in the context of a general effort to overthrow the institutions of individual liberty, limited government and the private enterprise economy. The natural family is the conceptual and material basis for the possibility of a human community that respects individual belongings. In order to establish a thoroughly collectivist and socialist regime, it must be completely discarded and destroyed. It must be annihilated. The fabrication of homosexual marriage thus appears as part of the more general war against liberty that is now coming to a head. Once we realize this, we understand the inadequacy of the strategy and tactics employed until now by those who profess to defend the natural family against this fabrication. In the next posting I will discuss their shortcomings, and the remedy for them.