I originally wrote this in July of 2004, but as gay marriage was adopted in New Hampshire this week, I thought it appropriate to update it.
In New Hampshire’s case, the law was created by the state legislature. In California, the issue was a little different. Proposition 22 prevented the state from recognizing gay marriages. But the California State Supreme Court overturned the initiative on the grounds that marriage is a “fundamental right,” and the people can not abrogate a right through a ballot initiative. The result was Proposition 8, which amended the California State Constitution:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
The passage of Proposition 8 was followed by immediate legal challenges in the California Supreme Court, which ultimately overturned its own position on gay marriage.
Massachusetts is yet a different story. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts created law out of whole cloth, and then ordered the state legislature to pass the law, recognizing gay marriage in that state, and completely dismantling any semblance of the balance of powers.
People are frustrated at being dictated to by a handful of social engineers in black robes. Many arguments have been put forward opposing gay marriage. The consequences of legalization are the focus of this column.
Gay marriage will have consequences that may or may not be expected. We have not even begun to discuss all the potentialities that will spring from it. Wisdom requires any possibility be addressed and resolved to prevent rushing to action unprepared for the results.
While studying Rights, Social Justice and Equality, I ran across a column by Dr. Stephen Baskerville entitled, “Could your kids be given to gay parents?” It catalyzed everything that I was thinking and inspired this column. Dr. Baskerville has since expanded on his initial idea in an essay called The Real Danger of Same-Sex Marriage, which is included in Preserving Sacred Ground, published by Utah’s Sutherland Institute.
I believe that gay marriage is a direct threat to traditional families, in that, the children of traditional families may be in danger of government seizure in the name of fairness, and redistributed to same-sex couples.
Nonsense, right? Wrong. The current trend toward a society based on Social Justice is rapidly becoming a reality. The ideas of self-government and responsibility are fading, and independence is seen as anti-social. Our system of government will soon be so radically different from that established by the Constitution as to earn classification as a new species of government.
What is Social Justice? The idea comes from the slogan of the French Revolution of 1789, “Égalité, Liberté, Fraternité.” Égalité is what concerns me, because it is the principle behind Social Justice.
“Égalité” is often defined as equality, but the English word “egality” also appears in the dictionary. Not only are the two words different, they mean different things. Balint Vazsonyi writes in his book America’s 30 Years War,
“Note that I translate the French slogan ‘Égalité’ as ‘Egality,’ and not as ‘Equality.’ Webster’s Dictionary tells us that egality is ‘an extreme social and political leveling.’ Our word ‘egalitarian’ confirms that definition. The process of leveling is worlds apart from equality in the affairs of man, which was the aspiration of the Round Table….
“Egality is the elimination of differences. Since people are different, only force can cover up the differences, and then only temporarily. Once force is no longer applied, the differences reappear….”
Equality comprehends the natural differences between people, and creates laws designed to protect people from harm arising out of their differences. Equality means that everyone has equal claims on the government for the protection of their rights.
Social Justice is the application of the principle of “Egality” to society. The natural differences between people are stark; yet some insist there should be no differences at all. Mr. Vazsonyi correctly says that the only way to achieve social equality is by force. The elimination of differences will not arise out of a voluntary motion of the people. Laws designed to eliminate differences are enacted to coerce the desired result.
An example of this principle in our society is Affirmative Action. The law tries to eliminate racial differences between applicants for jobs, college entrance, etc., but has now created a new target for discrimination, white males. Other examples are Social Security, and welfare benefits including food stamps, subsidized housing, and health care.
How do these laws resolve economic differences? The force of government is applied to take from those who appear to have and give to those who appear to have not. This redistribution has generally resulted in an economic reshuffling of wealth, but laws like Affirmative Action have social consequences as well.
Social Justice demands not only equal rights, but also equal things. The rich are taxed to feed the poor, provide housing and health care, and a host of other statist welfare benefits. No person should have any rights or possessions that exceed that of another person. The final solution of Social Justice is to distribute the enjoyment of rights and wealth to everyone equally. Any perception of inequality among individuals must be eliminated.
Which brings us back to gay marriage. Gay unions are, by nature, childless unions. It is physically impossible for two men or two women to produce a child through sexual contact. While most of us say, “of course,” there are those who find inequality in it. And inequality must be eliminated.
Dr. Baskerville’s column quotes Massachusetts State Senator Therese Murphy as saying, “Forty percent of the children adopted have gone to gay and lesbian families” despite the fact that gays are only about 3 percent of the population. Does 40% reflect the percentage of adoption applications filed in Massachusetts by same-sex couples, or are same-sex couples favored for adoption?
Studies show that children reared by same-sex couples are three to four times as likely to become gay or lesbian themselves, as compared to their counterparts raised in traditional families1. There is no rationale for placing 40% of adoptive children with less than 3% of the population, unless there is another agenda being played out.
If gay couples have the right to marry, then they also have the right to have children. Artificial insemination, or IUI, is one of the methods used by lesbian couples, but its success rate is still only 5 to 25 percent. And it will never work for men.
The passage of the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 allows for financial incentives for state social workers to remove children from homes, and provides additional bonuses for adoptions. This Act has created an official adoption market of children, legally stolen from their families by Child Protective Service agents, with or without just cause. It also provides a perfect vehicle for child redistribution.
Government has attempted to equalize people economically through redistribution of income. It has attempted to equalize people socially through race-based legislation. The next step is to equalize sexuality by legalizing gay marriage. Following that, I believe there will be an attempt to equalize families and eliminate any natural inequality between gay and heterosexual marriages.
Most of the necessary pieces are already in place to pave the way for Child Redistribution and the destruction of the traditional family. All that remains is national acceptance and broad legalization of gay marriage.
1 F. L. Tasker and S. Golombok, “Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 2 (1995): 213