Friday, May 3, 2013

Open Letter to Supreme Court of the United States of America (Part 3, final)

Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 is below and separately linked here.
            Claim 8)          Homosexual marriage is readily embraced by all other countries.
            Response 8)     Sexually progressive France held protests (November 17, 2012) concerning homosexual marriage. Imagine the shock to the international community when French citizens came out by the hundreds of thousands to protest against homosexual marriage. The French were protesting to fight against a parliamentary bill redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships and legalizing same-sex adoption.
Reuters reports:                      
Opponents of homosexual marriage and adoption, including most faith leaders in France, have argued that the reform would create psychological and social problems for children, which they believe should trump the desire for equal rights for gay adults.

Support for gay marriage in France has slipped by about 10 percentage points to under 55 percent since opponents began speaking out and fewer than half of those polled recently wanted gays to win adoption rights. Organizers insist they are not against gays and lesbians but for the rights of children to have a father and mother.

The basic point is this: without the intervention of government, there is no a priori understanding that can help us to understand certain types of homosexual relationships as being marriage. Homosexual marriage was not even considered until recently. Unlike heterosexual marriage, which exists in nature since man’s existence and is then recognized by the state, homosexual marriage is an abstract legal entity with no natural or prior existential existence. Indeed, once the term marriage is divorced from nature like this, then logically there’s no limit to the relationship types that can have ‘marriage’ or ‘family’ status conferred on it by the state.
All this has enormous implications for how we understand the relationship between the family and the state. But have we really considered the implications of saying that marriage and family should be defined by the state? There is no escaping from this problem. If homosexuals and heterosexuals are really “equal” before the law, then logically heterosexual (and even homosexual ) marriage must collapse into being little more than a legal construct as well.
Canadian theologian Douglas Farrow showed that after Canada legalized same-sex marriage, even traditional marriage were viewed as little more than a legal construct. In his book, Nation of Bastards, he warned that by claiming power to re-invent marriage, Canada “has drawn marriage and the family into a captive orbit. It (reversed) the gravitational field between the family and the state… It has effectively made every man, woman, and child a chattel of the state, by turning their most fundamental human connections into mere legal constructs at the state’s disposal. It has transformed (them) from divine gifts to gifts from the state.”
Once homosexual marriage is introduced, it will undermine the integrity of every family and every marriage in it. The state which legalizes gay marriage has assumed the god-like power to declare what constitutes a ‘family.’ By this assumption, government declares that both marriage and family are little more than legal constructs at best, and gifts from the state at worst. In the former case, marriage and family lose their objective fixity; in the latter case, we become the wards of the state.
                                                                                                 Christopher Lee

No comments:

Post a Comment