Owen posts his answer to the final question.
Summarily, he states that:
1) Marriage is a fundamental societal building block found across all races, societies, religions, and generations. (One can infer that it is NOT a legal 'creation' and thus not subject to legal 're-creation,' but that's up to the reader.)
2) Legal 're-creations' are occurring, (Mass. and Vt.,) and is likely to occur in Wisconsin. Owen inserts a caution to advocates of the fiction of gay "marriage"--what one Court does another may well un-do; i.e., be careful what you wish for...
3) To avoid the prospect of a Legal Positivist forced fiction, The Amendment should be enacted in the upcoming referendum.
Curiously, Owen allows that marriage should be defined by the will of the people, which is contrary to the inference in his #1. I happen to disagree; although positive civil law re-inforces the natural law, positive civil law, no matter HOW it is derived, cannot abrogate, nor derogate from the natural law--which as Owen demonstrated in #1 above, happens to govern marriage.
Those who would have us "Vote No" on The Amendment have resorted to lies and distortions in their advertising campaign, as Owen has pointed out. By and large, their positions on the questions from Jenna have been emotional, not rational. There's a reason for that.
If one thinks rationally about the predicate actions of "gay" sexual activity, one's natural impulse is shock and utter distaste. Therefore, it is very important to the homosexual advocates that the question is not discussed in rational terms, which would include a discussion of homosexual activity--but rather in terms of "rights."
There is no "right" to un-natural activity, which underlies the question at hand.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment