A Feminist Case Against Gay Marriage

Rainbow flag. Symbol of gay pride.

Image via Wikipedia

Though I do not purport to be a feminist, in fact, I abhor the very idea, that doesn’t mean that I am incapable of seeing something from the other person’s perspective. Somehow the gay movement has gotten itself aligned with the Civil Rights Movement and Women’s Rights movement to the detriment of both. While most feminists are devoutly pro-gay, that doesn’t mean that all feminists are. Since the pro-gay feminists have their voice already in the fray, I will be playing Devil‘s Advocate for feminists who oppose gay marriage.

A feminist worth their salt would reject gay marriage as an assault on women. I can see the people rolling in the aisles already, such an assertion is lunancy. However, the proponents of gay marriage want marriage to be a “basic human right.” By making it a right,  you are disregarding a very important aspect of marriage-the ability to reject a marriage partner based on your own free will. A right cannot be rejected simply because you don’t want to adhere to it. For instance, I cannot be denied the right to vote based on my skin color, no matter what you may or may not think of my skin color. My right to vote is not conditional on your opinion of me. However, you do have the “right” to not to marry me based on my skin color, or my weight or that you simply do not like me. Those are valid reasons not to marry me. Whether or not they are discriminatory is irrelevant, marriage is the joining of two people (male and female)  who have made a commitment to one another of their own free will to be wed and to raise a family. To force someone to marry another person is indeed a form of slavery.

Marriage DayNext, if marriage does become a right. It will be a right for men,not women. Historically, whenever marriages have been perceived as a right, it was the men who were able to choose their bride and the women pretty much had to go along for the ride. Women’s rights will be greatly affected should marriage become a right once more. Poor women would be forced into marriage in order to gain some financial security. Even wealthy women would be told whom to marry as marriage once again became nothing more than a contract between two wealthy families. Any control over her life would be lost. She would once again become the property of her father, her husband or some other significant male but not herself.

Third, marriage is already an equal partnership and puts women on par with men. Since a man can only marry a woman, she becomes essential to the institution of marriage. Should gay marriage take hold, she would lose the one area of equal status she has always had-that of being a wife. Wives have always had a higher degree of societal status and a larger degree of respect. With the onslaught of women leaving the home and going into the workforce wives have lost that automatic rise in status. Now what a woman does job-wise is how she achieves any sort recognition within society. Which is fine if you are a CEO of Ebay or run some Fortune 500 company but the maid at the Hilton is not significant at all, not even as a wife and/or mother. We have completely undervalued women and torn them from their most important role-that of wife and mother.

Lastly, there are more gay men[about 2.4% of the population] then

English: This protester was on his own and let...

there are lesbians [about 1.2% of the population]. That means gay men will receive far more of the benefits of marriage then women. It also says once and for all that women are irrelevant and have no place inside marriage! It will make the marriage about sex and not procreation and raising children. By defining marriage in such a putrid fashion, we lower our standards and women will once again become sex objects. Vessels of lust and nothing more. By degrading the mother of the species we will be putting our children in danger. For we will undervalue anything that comes from the female-most importantly children. Children have already been cast as the enemy of the women through the pro-abortion movement. We have already turned men against women and tried to completely dismantle the human family. And we see the moral depravity that has resulted from our social engineering.

In closing, even though women will be the ones most adversely affected by gay marriage, their voices are not being heard. It is not about equality because marriage as it currently is known is the most egalitarian institution we have. To tear that asunder would do a disservice to all women and children. If two men want commit sodomy let them do so without the approval of the state. No one is stopping them but marriage needs to be maintained for a healthy society to continue to function. Any feminist should be angry that 2.4 percent of men are being favored over 98.8 percent of women! Is this a fair exchange…is this justice…is this equality? I think not!

New York Passes Gay Marriage Legislation

Rainbow American flag promoting equality for e...

Image via Wikipedia

There are at least 29 sane people in New York who sit on the legislature. In a vote of 32-29, the New York legislature voted to legalize gay marriage. I would not be exactly dancing in the streets if I was a gay activist as they have taken to doing. This is not a ringing endorsement of gay marriage by a long shot. If anything it should be more discouraging to the winning side that after all this time, they are still barely getting enough votes to pass their agenda.

In fact, in a state as overwhelmingly liberal as New York to have 29 people say no to gay marriage is rather shocking. Trust me, if it was reversed and the legislature had voted it down while I would be happy it didn’t pass, I would be highly concerned that the margin for its failure was so slim.

This is nothing new for the gay marriage camp though, because they know they cannot let the people decide if they want gay marriage in their state or not. Whenever they have, they have lost. In fact, On November 4, 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8 by a margin of almost 600,000 votes. It took a renegade judge, Vaughn Walker,  with his own agenda to undo the will of the people.

History has shown while the people are not always right, the government is more frequently wrong and on the important issues of the day, especially the Court. The Court gave us Dred Scott vs. Sandford, Plessy vs. Fergueson. Taney, who was the Supreme Court justice on the Dred Scott Case is quoted as saying:

 It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in regard to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted; but the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.

 Therefore do not give me the dog and pony show about the “sanctity of our courts” and the “nobleness” of those who sit on the bench. They were wrong in 1857 when Dred Scott was decided, they were wrong in 2009 when they overturned Prop 8 and the legislators were wrong in New York. And for those of who think the gay activists are not trying to destroy marriage but just broaden the concept, there is this gem:

But once the judiciary or legislature adopts “the union of any two persons” as the legal definition of civil marriage, that conception becomes the sole definitional basis for the only law-sanctioned marriage that any couple can enter, whether same-sex or man-woman. Therefore, legally sanctioned genderless marriage, rather than peacefully coexisting with the contemporary man-woman marriage institution, actually displaces and replaces it. [Marriage Facts. Monte Neil Stewart]

 What this really is about is the complete dismantling of marriage and the traditional nuclear family in order to make petulant adults feel good about their own dysfunctional lives. God help us all.

 

Urban Conservatives: Who Are They?

Blogger Vanessa Jean Louis of http://blog.afroconservative.com wrote a piece recently on what she has termed the “urban conservative.”  So who is this urban conservative and does having such a group help or hurt the conservative movement?

First of all, we must remember though conservatives share basic tenets, their individual ideologies can differ. Fiscal conservatives are often at odds with social conservatives. Fiscal conservatives often argue that we should simply ignore divisive topics like abortion, gay marriage and gays in the military and instead should focus all our efforts on restoring the economy. Social conservatives (of which I proudly claim to be one) say restoring the economy is a lesson in futility if you have a society that decaying all around you. We believe our first priority is to lift the human spirit and bring back the promise given to us in the Declaration of Independence. That all of us are entitled to “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  The right to life being first and foremost.

So who are these urban conservatives? Do we really need another breed of conservatives considering the battle already brewing between fiscal and social conservatives? Urban conservatives might be the answer though-according to jean Vanessa Louis’ site urban conservatives combine the social conservatives need to focus on societal issues with the fiscal conservatives view of limited government, especially concerning monetary matters.  Urban conservatives, according to Ms. Louis, should not be confused with black conservatism, since many urban conservatives come in all shades.

Urban conservatives are usually from the inner city (so am I an urban conservative by default?) and don’t see the solutions to solve the problems in their community as a one size fits all kind of deal.  There is this quote from Akindele Akinyemi (pictured on the right) on an urban conservative website titled Hip Hop Republican-http://www.hiphoprepublican.com

When we discuss the need for urban conservatism we do not seek to be validated by mainstream conservatives. So when we say we are not interested in Rush Limbnaugh, Ann Coulter or other radio shock jocks its not because we think what they are doing is not effective. If you like that level of entertainment then please support them. We simply want to concentrate on policies that we can help shape and develop to execute.

 Urban conservatives seemed to have found a happy union between their social conservatism and their fiscal one. Maybe Jim DeMint was right when he was quoted as saying, “You can’t be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative.” Obviously, urban conservatives already knew that. Maybe it is time for the rest of the conservative to figure it out to.