Sunday, March 05, 2006

The Amendment

A number of bloggers have now chimed in on The Amendment--most of them ambivalent-to-negative on it.

One wonders if some of the Highly-Educated-and-Scrivening-Class is perhaps educated beyond their level of intelligence. They are certainly pumped full of their Elite-vitamins.

Some try to wiggle around with the "Second Sentence," ruminating about the meaning, purpose, yada yada. It's not that hard, boys and girls: it's a defense against the Even-More-Highly-Educated-Bunch in the State of Massachusetts, which would be happy under the 'full faith and credit' clause of the USConstitution to dump their brand of pointy-headed horseapples on the State of Wisconsin's residents. Lawyers are particularly prone to fret over the Second Sentence, which tends to prove the maxim that law is far too important to leave to lawyers.

But that's merely an indirect and Oh-So-Civilized method of attacking the First Sentence: only a man and a woman will be considered to be Spouse and Spouse-ette, husband and wife, man and wife...you get the idea.

It's precisely the well-deserved utter contempt for lawyers that brought about The Amendment in the first place. If you don't understand yet that the AntiChristianLibertineUnion considers it their mission to pervert language, you don't get the first maxim of war propaganda: "To Hell with Truth!!" Need we remind you that a fervent aspirant to the High-Priests-of-Decadence group has questioned ontology itself? Does "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is?" ring a bell with you?

So The Amendment made it even more a challenge to them.

As to the overall purpose--yes, it is to unabashedly proclaim that the privileges of marriage granted by the State shall remain reserved only to those marriages which have the actual, real, potential for offspring. That's because offspring are in the public interest. One could argue that the State should take away such privileges, which is fine. Argue THAT in an election campaign. Argue THAT at the Country Inn in Waukesha. In other words, tell married couples that the State will now proceed to take away the tax breaks associated with children and with being married. C'mon: tell us that only the State can make such rules, and only the State grants privileges to marriage. Let's make Positive Law the grounds for debate, to show that it is Lawyers and Legislators who are the real gods...just like in the self-defense argument, where the State of Wisconsin still affirms that the State alone allows or dis-allows self-defense. Yeah.

What? Don't have the nerve? Cat got your tongue?

Perhaps the most inane remark was made by some blogger who declared that 'homosexuality MUST be natural, because it occurs.' (He also used the inflated 10% figure, instead of the real <5% figure--which tells you something.) This is directly analogous to the statement 'Anger is natural so murder is OK.'

This is the deception-by-elision argument. Skip the important part of the equation so you don't have to defend, ah, buggery...or murder.

See, in between the condition of anger and the act of murder, there is a knowing, consenting, actor--just as in between the condition of homosexuality and the act of buggery there is a knowing, consenting, actor. We have all the sympathy in the world for people who are afflicted by a homosexual orientation, which is a grave disorder. We have much less sympathy for those who think that they are "entitled" to privileges of the married because they want to act on this condition. As a society, we have decided to tolerate homosexual activity (in most cases.) But toleration of such activity should not be mis-read as a sign of approval, nor of acceptance.

The Educated Elites would have us believe that it is "natural" to pack fudge. Wrong. Alternatively, they would have us believe that the Leviathan State is the sole grantor of natural rights, and the sole legislator of 'right and wrong.' Wrong again.

Every State which has acted to protect marriage through referendum has done so by an overwhelming margin. Wisconsin will be no different, with or without the Elites.

2 comments:

Terrence Berres said...

"the privileges of marriage granted by the State"

Once you misconceive this as an issue of grants of privileges by the State, you're on the slippery slope.

Dad29 said...

Allen, have you thought of getting your own blogsite? They're free, you know.