How Fowl a Foundation: Playing Duck, Duck, Goose With Our Civil System

When it comes to marriage equality, I think people become derailed by the word 'marriage,' mistakenly thinking it is the issue.  In reality, marriage has little or nothing to do with it.  

Marriage, in this instance, functions only as an adjective: a word to modify or describe the subject.  Equality is the subject.  What kind of equality?  Marriage equality.  But, the adjective is superfluous.  Undoubtedly, the issue here is equality.  

Does this equal that?

Equal is the most basic and concise of all arithmetic: does what's on this side match up precisely the same to what is on this side.  So easily comprehensible is the idea, we trust 5-year-old minds to grasp it.  Greater than, less than, equal, not equal are concepts children learn even before addition/subtraction and they have no trouble mastering it.  

Were I to give our most infantile students the problem 2=5 they would know it is incorrect.  If I changed numbers to words, e.g., able=not able, the discrepancy would still be blaring.  Should it become allowed vs. not allowed, the concept still does not become more complicated: as opposites, the two cannot be equal.  

So, is granting one group of people the right to a government sanctioned marriage and denying another group of people the right to a government sanctioned marriage equal?  The obvious and resounding answer is no.  Given the transparency, I hope at least this much is clear to everyone.  Regardless of stance, we at least can all agree the current conditions are unequal.

Now, the only slightly more complicated question is SHOULD they be equal.

I do say only slight more complicated because the answer should come almost as obviously.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

The answer is right there.  Unless…  Do we really believe that?

We have a struggling 200 year history proving we try to live by it:

Slavery
Suffrage
Civil Rights
Women's Rights
Equal Opportunity

This certainly is not the first time (nor sadly the last, according to status quo) our country has faced an equilibrium dilemma.  

When settling two opposing sides the Supreme Court will be presented with facts, statistics, and opinions.  However, the weightiest evidence generally comes in the form of rulings from previous court decisions.  Essentially, they look at court rulings on similar situations and try to establish consistency under the assumption these previous court rulings based their decisions in accordance and to be consistent with the original founding ideals (which is ironic, since—from its inception—the only consistency our country displays is continually having a minority group fighting for the right to be treated equal).

Given the impingement of such notorious cases as those listed above, it is ineffable to me this topic ever became an issue in the first place, or that it continues to be a highly debated issue to this day.  

Under adherence to founding proclamations of liberty regulation, and in congruence with precedence paved by previous law-binding resolutions, should homosexuals be considered equal to any other U.S. citizen?  Most assuredly YES.

Considering they are given equal status to any other U.S. citizen, is there any reason under our nation's laws (not God's) they should be punished?

After all, convicted felons are considered equal U.S. citizens.  However, they have certain rights revoked as punishmental retribution.  Should homosexuals be eligible for lawful punishment, withholding the right to marry becomes arguable.  

The perfunctory answer is no.  Homosexuals have lived peacefully among society since this country originated.  Chances are one or two probably even signed the Declaration of Independence.  If homosexuality was causing harm or malice to a punishable extent, laws governing it surely would have been put in place by now.  There's as much criminality to being born homosexual as there is to being born female, blue-eyed, 5 feet tall, or from the Midwest. 

If time is not a good enough teacher/indicator, science will agree.  There is absolutely no causal effect between homosexuality and any sort of criminal behavior up to and including parenting.  Bad parenting isn't punishable by law, but nothing treads lightly when it comes to our children.  Even so, records reveal same-sex couples tend to be model citizens with a clean record.

According to Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University who researches gay and lesbian parenting, 50 percent of pregnancies among heterosexual couples are accidental, whereas gay and lesbians choose to become parents.  "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

Additionally, research has shown that "kids of same-sex couples—both adopted and biological kids—fare no worse than the kids of straight couples on mental health, social functioning, school performance, and a variety of other life-success measures."  In fact, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance, and role models for equitable relationships (http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html).

Like a parent, "the purpose of law is to provide an objective set of rules for governing conduct and maintaining order in a society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice)."  

It is imperative a judge maintain objectivity as it is his sole responsibility when administering legal proceedings and offering a final decision.  

"Bias and discrimination form an ever-present threat to an objective decision.  Any prejudice on the part of the lawyers, the judge, or jury members threatens to destroy the court’s credibility."

Ipso facto, because the Supreme Court is restricted solely to objectivity, its decisions are only granted permission to take the following into consideration:

• Established and binding documents, e.g., Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, Amendments, Bill of Rights, et al.

• Similar court cases and their rulings, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education (1954) which outlawed state-sanctioned segregation in public schools, Loving v. Virginia (1967) which struck down a state law prohibiting interracial marriage, and Taylor v. Indiana (1975) which ruled against state exclusion of women from jury duty.

• Empirical data, research, or evidence, especially if a direct causal relationship can be established and upheld over time.  

A reexamination of these topics as already discussed:

• The founding principles of our government state all men are created equal.

• An embarrassing judicial paper trail of mistreated minorities already plagues our history.

• Time and scientific findings indicate we have potential to gain and nothing to lose if we allow same-sex marriage and accept same-sex parenting.

Bullet listing the facts sans extraneous variables practically presents the clear-cut answer itself.  Why, then, do heated debates continue to battle on?  Simply put: people cannot edit immaterial as easily as a word processor can.

**The rest of the article will continue to address all other concerns and arguments associated with the subject, but it is important to note those topics relevant to the Supreme Court and their decision have already been covered. Here forward is dispensable excess of ideas and debate.

Non-admissible evidence in the Supreme Court: opinions, God and religion, suspicions, hearsay & speculation

Opinions

This is the most difficult idea for people to wrap their head around.  

Every person believes their opinion is correct.  No one believes in a ‘wrong’ opinion.  If it was perceived to be wrong, the belief would be changed to one correct.  Human nature also generalizes the idea our personal opinion of what is correct will be correct for everyone else.

Are you entitled to have your own opinion?  Yes.  May you practice your opinion in your own home?  Yes.  Are you free to pass your opinion on to your children?  Yes.  Are there laws that protect your right to have an opinion?  Yes.  Does having an opinion mean it is the most correct, fair, and best for the country as a whole?  No.  It is for this very reason we strive to strip opinions out of the judicial system, rather employing judicial decisions be restricted to objective, empirical evidence.

I had a friend incensed when courts ruled to overturn Proposition 8.  Hers was included among a majority vote that originally passed the proposition.  She was outraged that a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" could blatantly disregard how the people had spoken.  Leaders are chosen to represent the will of the people and put their voice into action.  She felt very betrayed.

It is, perhaps, for this very reason a system of checks and balances was established in the first place.  

Proposition 8 was put in place.  The leaders did do their job.  The will of the people was heard.  The will of the people was also deemed unconstitutional.  It was not the first time the will of the people has been deemed unconstitutional.  The primary responsibility of the judicial branch is to interpret and apply the laws, and ensure their constitutionality.  

Being of the people, by the people, and for the people means enacting what is best for all humankind and for the country as a whole rather than being enslaved to a majority vote.  Generally, we trust public opinion will naturally see what is best and run parallel to it.  Unfortunately, that is not always the case.  Remember: slavery, witch trials, world domination, forced western civilization, and genocide have all had their day under the protective umbrella of popular public opinion.

Even when supported by an entire population, it is possible for an opinion not to be the most correct.

Jill O'Donell, a 2009 contestant on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, thought she had the answer when a poll showed 81% of the audience agreed with her.  81% of the audience and Jill were wrong.  She lost.  The right answer was there, but 81% of people thought the right answer was wrong.  Fortunately, it happened on a flippant show and not in the perils of congress.  

According to the game show, audience public opinion is incorrect 10% of the time.  A different look reveals Jill would have had to refrain from majority persuasion, go against her own inclinations of what is right, and rely on a meek less-than-19% vote in order to actually get the question right.  

That is a coarse amount of grain to go against.  Surely, it couldn’t feel comfortable.  Yet...sometimes chaffing the system is where the right answer hides.

Recently, Miley Cyrus, an influential young celebrity, hid nothing when she tweeted a picture of herself with a unique, short-cropped, edgy-style haircut that gobsmacked fans.  She was socially lambasted by an overwhelming opinion the hairdo was ugly and must have been drug induced.        

Keyboards everywhere felt the friction: Facebook, Twitter, and the desktops of anchors at every national news station were ablaze with a comment, story, or opinion about Miley's disastrous do.  

One place retained blissful, ignorant freedom: The Bill Hopper on the desk of the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives.  

If the overwhelming public opinion is that Miley should not have that haircut, then why was no bill introduced to outlaw her from having it?  Should the constitution not be written to define Miley's hair as "that of a woman which must remain shoulder length or longer."?

It must affect us all; her hair was of obtuse national impact.  It was reported in national news.  News becomes history.  History becomes taught.  Where is the worry our children will grow up thinking that kind of hairstyle is OK?  Why is action not being taken?  

Maybe the situation isn't that dire after all.  For a tween icon/role model her picture was unable to influence many to trim their hair to match.  Perhaps we overestimate potential affect.  Perhaps we underestimate how much family units are intrinsically motivated.  Perhaps we overestimate the right of intrinsically motivated family units to exert lifestyle choices on their neighbors.  

This is why opinions cannot be allowed to rule our federal system.

God and Religion

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."--The First Amendment of the United States Constitution

Without doubt, the ultimate catalyst for opinions is religion.  To the misfortune of a large portion of the population, religious beliefs are intangible.  Believe in them with all the surety you can, they're still not provable.  They are not data; they are opinions.  And, for reasons discussed in the previous section, opinions are not and cannot be allowed to dictate the course of this country.  

Therefore, the words of the Bible (or any other religious text) and the ideas, sentiments, or beliefs behind them hold no weight in the Supreme Court.  

Whether a congressman from Texas, a pastor in Wisconsin, or just the guy down the street, how people feel about the words in the Bible (or any other religious text) is not admissible in court.  Feelings and opinions DO count in polls, elections, and even congressional votes.  Use them there!  However, as previously discussed those votes can be deemed unconstitutional.  

Likewise, how non-religious people feel about religious people and their words, ideas, sentiments, or beliefs is not admissible in court.

Sob stories from either side are not admissible evidence in court.  

So, what is admissible in court?

Fortified regulatory and liberty documents

Previous court cases

Unbiased empirical scientific evidence

I understand religion is in the makeup of this country.  I understand this land was settled by Puritans with the grateful intent to worship free from oppression.  I understand this country was established as "one nation, under God," grateful--once again--to be emancipated from oppression.  However, ecclesiastical inclusions in our blueprints here and there do not negate entire amendments set to separate church and state.

The common thread is aversion to oppression, not devotion to God (one is liberty, the other is mandate).  

I'm sure these early pioneers did not fully comprehend the extent of their decisions.  The Pilgrims sought freedom from the Church of England, but no doubt imagined this land would always remain Puritan.  150 years later the Founding Fathers recognized religious dispersal, but probably maintained God would remain intact.  Yet, it is not God they sought to protect.  

Freedom from oppression is what they weaved into the constitution.  In God we trust, but in God we do not make everyone believe.  Should our government rely on religious doctrine for law-making, we would have created the same environment we fought to emancipate from.    

The government MUST not adhere to religious doctrine or incorporate their theologies into law.  Doing so would be mad chaos.

If an environment of like-minded individuals is vital to your happiness and child rearing, then locate yourself in such an environment: find a densely aligned neighborhood, create a commune, discover and establish your own country, convert others to your way of thinking through gospel, teachings, and example.  These actions are both lawful and appropriate.  Overtaking a country already established to celebrate and protect differences of beliefs and opinions is not lawful or appropriate.  

Imagine this country was a large ship.  The government would be the captain of the ship and the rest of us would be its crew.  Grumblings begin.  Many crew members are not in favor of the food the cook has been serving.  They even find his cooking immoral.  The cook says he has the right to serve whatever he pleases.  Indeed, the laws of the ship state he has the right to cook the same as anyone else.

The crew members appeal to the captain.  The captain reviews the situation.  The food has not caused any illness outbreaks.  The food has kept the crew alive, strong, and able to get the ship's work done.  Unable to find any harm with his culinary skills beyond a general distaste for the flavor, the captain has no choice but to maintain the rights of the cook.

"Mates, I know ye be finding the taste a bit disagreeable, but no wrongdoing has been done.  Cook has given us strong meat and drink and kept us from sickness.  Under the laws of this ship, there is no provocation for me to withdraw him."

This upsets the crew.  "Yer suppose 'ter be having our back, Cap'n!  Yer suppose 'ter be watchin' out for the morale 'o this crew!"

"Watchin' out for this crew means keeping this ship goin'.  There's a lot more 'a of you than there be of him or me.  Blow holes in our own ship and we're all lost at sea.  Ye may not be liking the taste, but Cook's food has kept us strong and healthy and will get us to land.  Git back to work, the lot 'er ya.  You'll be so accustomed by the time land arrives, Cook's plates'll be as welcoming as mum's meals to ye."

Indeed, the crew does get to work.  Though the captain's words are true--no harm in the cooking can be found, and most on the ship will become accustomed to the flavor--there are a few who stand so firmly against it they would rather starve.  Realizing the captain is bound by rules of objectivity, they rely on their own means for the change they desire.  

They begin procuring their own rations.  They teach their children what real food should taste like.  They share their fixings with others.  They offer to share their recipes with all those who are interested.  The mess hall becomes a democratic potluck of progress.  

People can sample whatever they'd like.  The ship must remain detached, but groups on the ship are free to entice followers with promises of secret ingredients.  

For unaffiliated crew members, the ship has its stock supply of food it must provide.  Many affiliated members find it too bland; they prefer secret ingredients.  Nonetheless, anyone is welcome to it.  By no means is anyone forced to eat the ship's food.  The ship houses all cuisine and is happy to host the edible market, but the only food the ship may produce itself is neutral.  The ship is not competing in the free market.  The ship is neutral.

Tempers toward neutrality are misguided.  If a car is in neutral gear, yelling at it to move is fruitless.  This country was given a governing set of rules (including "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") to keep it neutral, thereby, equal.  Expecting the government not to follow the very set of rules it established is not only fruitless, it's juvenile.  An orange tree is establish to grow oranges; no one expects an orange tree to grow apples.

A law allowing same-sex marriage is in congruence with the governing set of rules and, therefore, expected.  The government is not a religious entity.  Religious entities have the luxury to be sided.  Should a religion that once preached marriage between man and woman only suddenly change their doctrine to include same-sex marriage, a shock wave of anger and protest would be applicable.  Attack the doctrine, not the constitution, i.e., attack the source of your beliefs only when your beliefs are being challenged by their source.

After its 2008 involvement in Proposition 8, the LDS church became an example of a source challenged.  

The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (more commonly know as Mormons) issued a proclamation to the world on family.  They discuss how marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and essential to family and His eternal plan.

Recently, I have seen this proclamation surfacing on the internet accompanied by this quote from Dieter F. Uchtdorf, a member of the church's Council of Twelve Apostles.  

"Absolute truth is not dependent upon public opinion or popularity.  Polls cannot sway it.  Not even the inexhaustible authority of celebrity endorsement can change it."

This may come as a bit of a shock, but I agree.  Absolute truth is just that: absolute.  It is unyielding.  It cannot be changed as it is limitless and free from imperfection.  Therefore, one could add to his quote "not even the laws of this land can alter it."

If absolute truth is impenetrable--positively impermeable to any person, thing, idea, or time--then what does it matter if this mortal nation passes laws equalizing same-sex couples?  Absolute truth will continue forever and ever, this life and this nation will not.  Why fight for something that--in the absolute truth of things--will make no difference in the end?

Vacations invariably end and one must always face the reality of returning home.  However, while on vacation, indulging feels gratifying.  We feel entitled to relax in our pleasantries as much as possible.  Is that really what's happening here?  Are people opposing marriage equality just so their stay at this earthly resort can be more pleasant?

An interesting choice since I've never read anything scriptural advising this life is meant to be as easy as possible.  Nor, have I ever heard love thy neighbor as thyself unless thy neighbor inconveniences your life.

On the other hand, same-sex couples arguably are fighting for the same petty allowance: a pleasant stay on this earth.  Who, then, is the more deserving party? 

One thing is certain: absolute truth will eventually level the playing field.  Being absolute means there are no biases.  Absolute truth does not recognize separation of church and state.  There can be no separation as absolute truth applies to all sides.  Perhaps, then, there is enough comfort (or pity) in absolute truth to extend greater help to same-sex couples.  

Same-sex couples and those of a homosexual nature will face stares, ostracization, infertility, denial, depression, love and acceptance, and respect issues to an extent unknown by the greater heterosexual community.  Inherently, life on this earth will be more challenging for same-sex couples than for multi-sexed couples.  Determining who has greater cause for a life less inconvenienced is pronounced.  

Ramp access, automatic doors, ESL (English as a second language) programs, subtitles, assisted living centers...these are some of the ways in which society has already lent a helping hand to minorities with a greater cause for a life less inconvenienced.

Were these enacted because we believe in the American Dream--the possibility of a better life--and in treating other the way we want to be treated, or is good-Christian charity the only culprit due credit?

Suspicions, hearsay, and speculation

Suspicions, hearsay, and speculation are superstitions.  They happen when God is removed from the equation, but fear is left behind.  They are unfounded, unwarranted, and ever-evolving.

The Evolution of Same-Sex Acceptance:

I. Homosexuality is a choice.  

Even a quick glance at how science has deduced homosexuality over the past 100 years establishes strong biological influences.  

One would think first-hand testimony from millions of self-identifying homosexuals who insist they were born that way would be convincing.  When someone claims they have a headache no one questions if they're really in pain or if their head pounding is a choice.  We accept their word.  If that's not enough, these articles provide good resources to the inheritance of homosexuality. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/nyreview.htm

(A good historical overview of homosexuality and biological research up to the 1990s though lacking in twin studies)

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-12/being-born-gay-isnt-your-genes-its-them

(Current day advances in research on biological roots of homosexuality)

II. Homosexuality may be innate, but the choice to act upon it is not.

This is the love the sinner, hate the sin philosophy.  

In all my Christian theological exposure, I cannot remember ever hearing doctrine directing to hate anything.  Repent, avoid, or choose not to engage in certain behaviors, yes.  But, I can't think of an instance I've been directed to hate.  I can, however, think of plenty admonitions to love.    

Homosexual attractions and feelings of intimacy cannot be helped, but engaging in homosexual intercourse is a decision.  However, it is a decision that is far too trivialized.

I read a comment the other day from someone who cited this philosophy.  

"Pride is a sin.  I may be born prideful, but I can choose whether to act on it or not."  

This is a completely unfair comparison.  According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, sex is a basic physiological need.  It is on the same level as breathing, food, water, sleep, and excretion.  A fair comparison would include a dichotomy with another need on the same level.

Breathing, excretion, sleep...these are all things over which you have control.  You may be born hungry, but you can choose to engage in eating or not.  If excreting was a sin, how long could you go before defecating?  As you writhe around and scream out from cramped bowels, how fair would it seem for God to command you refrain from this natural behavior?  

Because these are basic physiological needs they can only go unmet for so long before death becomes an issue.  Obviously, one can abstain from sex without lethal intervention.  But, the comparison--the way it feels to do so--is akin to starving oneself.  Even feelings of intimacy (which are categorized by Maslow as needs of love and belonging) can only be ignored for an interval of time.  Should a person be neglected from feeling love or belonging, death will again become imminent.

III. Sanctity of Marriage

Previously, I discussed how equality is the subject and marriage only a superfluous modifier.  Discussing sanctity adds another layer of nonsense.  It is used in conjunction with the term marriage.  Sanctity is one more step removed from the actual subject.  Thus, sanctity acts like the friend of a friend of a friend putting in their two-cents.

It's no use arguing sanctity.  Aside from a running list of examples where heterosexual marriages have been treated sanctimoniously, sanctity implies holiness, saintliness, or godliness.  It is religious in denotation and, therefore, not admissible in a government court of law.

IV. Definition of Marriage

This subject is really interesting to me because--in an effort to defend the definition of marriage--I find people are actually redefining the definition of marriage.

From the website Wordorigins.org--

marriage, n., ...Since c.1400, the word has been applied figuratively to any close union or blending of any two things. The word dates to c.1300 and is from the Anglo-Norman mariage. Ultimately it is from the classical Latin verb maritare, to marry, used to refer to people, animals, and the crossing of grapes in viticulture and the nouns maritus/marita, husband/wife.  

Originally, marriage meant the unification of any two things, e.g., a pinch of salt helps marry the two flavors together, or dusk is where day marries the night.  

Obviously, the word made a great candidate for describing the act of two people coming together, and has almost exclusively taken on that connotation today.  However, this is already a deviation from the original definition.  Propositions to implement this definition as permanent in order to avoid the definition changing are actually propositions to change the definition themselves.  This is why the definition of marriage argument is flawed.  

Which definition are we striving to protect?  The original definition or the more evolved popular definition of today?  If we're striving to protect the original definition used to describe the blending of any two things, then there is no reason why it wouldn't apply to Man 1 and Man 2.  That's not what we want!  Then we must be trying to protect the current connotation of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  But, what we really mean by 'protect' is stop; we want to cease evolution of this word here and now.  This is problematic.

"The heart of the issue is one of semantics.  What exactly do we mean by the word marriage?  Regular readers of Wordorigins.org are no doubt aware that a word’s meaning is determined by usage, not etymology. If we extend the meaning of marriage to include gay unions, then that is what the word means. But it is interesting to look at where the word comes from and how it has been traditionally used."     

Words are only used as best efforts to convey feelings.  They are carrier pigeons: we assess what's inside, give it meaning, and then attach the meaning to words sent out to communicate.  No one--not even the United States Government--can put a cap on feelings.  Look at how much language has evolved over the past 50/100/1000 years.  To think definitions can be caged in a constitution is absurd.  

Some recognize and embrace the evolution of words, thereby proposing we create a new word for the situation.  Grant same-sex couples civil unions.  Give them all the same rights, protections, and advantages of marriage, just under a different title.  

As previously stated, words are created to convey feelings.  If the feeling intended is disparagement to this certain group of people, then--by all means--civil union is a right-winning successor to marriage. 

Assume you are the parent of twin boys: Bobby and Tommy.  One day Bobby is given a shiny, new Tonka truck to play with.  He is thrilled!  All of his friends have the same Tonka truck!

Tommy, however, is given a truck that looks exactly like the Tonka truck, but is made by Matel.  Both boys run out to play with their new toys.  

Even though his truck looks just like all the others, Tommy realizes his is the only truck that doesn't have a Tonka label on the side.  Tommy looks at the white letters spelling out M-A-T-E-L on his truck and feels out of place.  He wants to be included like everyone else.  He picks up one of the other boys' Tonka trucks and--as the parent--you must swiftly swipe it from his hands.  He is not allowed to play with that truck, you explain to him.

The other boys push Tommy out of their fleet.  They say his truck is not the real thing.  

Tommy is painfully aware that he's been differentiated from everyone else.  He feels less-than.  He wants to know why you love Bobby--and why all other parents love their children--more than you love him.  

Would you care to explain to him how his feelings are unfounded?  How he is the same as everyone else even though he’s not allowed to play with the same truck as everyone else?  That--even though you gifted Bobby with the special truck and Tommy with the socially second-rate truck--you love both boys equally and have given them equal treatment?  Perhaps conveniently inventing some new words will help the situation.

Likewise, if I showed students a picture of a carrot and a potato with an equal sign between the two, they would know it is wrong.  Despite both being vegetables, carrots do not equal potatoes.

This is why separate but equal was unanimously ruled unconstitutional in 1954.  Synonymous means similar, not same.  Similar is not equal.  The very fact that one is not allowed to bear the same label as the other denotes a difference.  And, where a difference exists, equality cannot.

The same company can produce the same product.  When packaged in different boxes and sold only to certain customers, an automatic less-than status is conveyed.  Civil union sounds like the familiar tinkle of throwing a dog a bone.

Civil union is not the only newborn phrase being brandished.  One cannot read an academic paper advocating marriage protection without time devoted to the concept of conjugal marriage.

Conjugal marriage is a much more intellectual approach to protecting the definition of marriage.  It dates examples back to Plato, thus providing acceptable exemption from religious bias, and provides a clear and distinctive definition of marriage.

The conjugal view of marriage differs in that it places almost all of the emphasis on reproduction.  Any two people can commit lives, hearts, or souls to to one another.  Beyond these introductory fusions, conjugal marriage asserts the body is also part of a person and must therefore be part of the fusion in order to constitute true marriage.  This fusion of flesh is achieved through conjugal acts that lead to conception.  

As members of the same sex are unable to achieve such a union, they are disqualified from having a true marriage.  This would also eliminate polyamory as multiple people are unable to conceive together.      

Reproduction is essential because family is the fundamental building block in the success of this country.  The government relies heavily on families.  Families lead to less crime and more upstanding, honest, decent citizens.  The government should adopt the conjugal definition and have authority to regulate marriage in order to provide better citizens for us all.

There definitely is a certain level of appeal to this argument.  At the very least, it is respectable as the most comprehensive philosophy.  Using conception as a threshold for true marriage is ideal because it's tangible.  It is impossible to prove the fusion of two souls.  But, offspring is proof positive a fusion between two individuals has occurred.

Having said that, conjugal marriage opens the door to several rebuttals:

1) Currently, the fight is to protect the definition of marriage.  I am unaware of any document that contracts couples into producing offspring and then legally requires them to do so.  Therefore, the fight would need to be rerouted from protecting the definition of marriage to a proposed amendment to change marriage laws to include the conjugal definition.

2) With one small exception, the entire conjugal definition of marriage can be reduced to one preexisting word: conception.  The one exception is conjugal marriage implies the conception was the result of commitment, whereas conception is not always brought on purposefully.  Thus, is conjugal marriage actually addressing marriage, or is it a tangent battle more directed toward the regulation of spawning?  It seems as though the conjugal view only views marriage as valid if offspring is produced.  

3) When faced with an apparent question, "What about heterosexual couples who are incapable of having children: sterile, barren, or elderly couples for instance?" the argument seems to lose its sure-footing.  

"The sterility of spouses--the inability of spouses to have children, so long as the spouses are capable of consummating their marriage by fulfilling the behavioral conditions of procreation, and thus obtaining true bodily, organic, personal unity--has never been treated as an impediment to marriage, even where sterility is certain and even certain to be permanent.  Children who may be conceived in marital acts are understood not as ends extrinsic to marriage, but rather as gifts, fulfilling for the couple as a marital unit and not merely as individuals.  Gifts that supervene on acts whose central and defining justifying point is precisely marital unity."

--Robert P. George, Professor of Politics at Princeton University,
On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government 

Debunking this quote using more vernacular and less jargon boils down to this: the inability of spouses to have children has never posed a problem to marriage as long as the spouses are still capable of engaging in sexual intercourse.  Children are not necessary to a marriage, they are gifts for a marriage.  Gifts that come from the unifying act of intercourse.

There is a contradiction here: same-sex couples are excluded from this proposed definition of marriage because of their inability to procreate, but as long as sterile couples can fulfill the behavioral conditions of procreation (i.e., have sex as though they are capable reproducing) they are not excluded.  

4) Family is not the fundamental building block of this nation.  Workers are the fundamental building block of this nation. 

The most barbaric governments thrive off children who grow up to be strong workers.  The healthier a population, the more earth can be mined, the more trees can be chopped, the more goods can be sold, the more the nation flourishes.  Update the concept to modern day service industries and office buildings and it's still applicable.  

The success of the government doesn't depend on marriage, it doesn't depend on family, it doesn't depend on whether children were born out of wedlock, raised in single parent homes, or adopted by gay parents.  It depends on people who will punch in and punch out everyday.

5) Conjugal marriage alleges family is the causal factor for people growing up to be decent, honest, law-abiding citizens.  Family seems to be getting synonymously confused with good parenting.  While those raised in families are probably more likely to experience good parenting, the level of parenting is the determining factor, not the family itself.  A quick turn about the tube will reveal a plentitude of dysfunctional families unfit to be considered shining examples of civility.

It is important to note conjugal marriage also fails to account for all the statistics that correlate same-sex parents to equal if not better levels of parenting.

6) If the factor separating conjugal marriage from all other definitions of marriage is a fusion of the flesh, then what is to stop same-sex couples from fusing a piece of their flesh together and claiming the title?  Perhaps a lock of hair from each braided together, a soldered ear lobe, or a surgically removed and fused square of skin from an unobtrusive place like the hip.  Would they be considered married then?

In order to avoid the macabre, the definition would need to be modified to specify fusion of sperm and egg.  If that is the case, then I reiterate where is the distinction between conjugal marriage and conception?  Is marriage being limited (or perhaps even unwittingly granted) to only those inseminated?

7) While using the restroom this afternoon, the person in the stall next door walked out without washing his hands.  Sanitation leads to illness and death.  Good sanitation is arguably a base need more vital to child rearing than good parenting or the presence of a familial unit.  

Unlike the latter two, the effects of sanitation can be easily recorded and scientifically proven.  Neither a family environment nor parenting matter if a child becomes ill and dies.  Imagine those wiping, unwashed hands being used to test a baby bottle.  Shouldn't the government find it more important to restrict marriage to only those who wash their hands after engaging in restroom behavior?  Isn't THAT what's best for society overall?  

These accusations may seem ridiculous--and they are--but they are fair and only as far-fetched as other snowball arguments (such as "If we allow same-sex couples to marry what’s to stop people from marrying farm animals?") that have been applied to marriage equality.   

V. Gay Marriage Will Be Forced into Academic Curriculum

Homosexuality is already being taught in public schools inasmuch as science will allow, just as The Big Bang Theory and Theory of Evolution (not The Creation) are current curriculum. 

Yes, the fight for marriage equality will also find its way into curriculum, inasmuch as it is historical, just as Indian Reservations and Civil Rights are historical.   

However, the morality of homosexuality holds no business being taught in school.

When teachers present these theories in class they are under strict observation from the school board to handle the subjects with the upmost care.  The subjects are presented purely as scientific theories and not as proof-filled contrasts to the Bible.  Parents should find comfort knowing these theories have been taught in school for decades, yet Bible stories remain the prevailing popular belief.  

Parents who monitor what their child is exposed to in order to maintain as tight a grip as possible on what their child believes, is an easy observation to come by.  However, it shows little faith in the power of parenting and almost a complete lack of faith in the child's decision-making skills.  It's startling how many parents fear an entire lifetime of rearing will be undone by the lesson of one simple school teacher.

If same-sex acceptance was to be taught in school, there is no reason to believe it would have more success than any other non-sanctioned theory pitted against parental or biblical influence.

Regardless, the government is not allowed to make decisions based on ifs.  They can only take into consideration things that WILL happen.  It must be proven with research, facts, and statistics.  No proof exists that homosexuality or same-sex marriage will be codified into the educational system as correct moral conduct, only the fear that it might.  Fear that it might, is not relevant in a court of law.

VI. Gay Marriage Will Impose on Freedom or Religion

This is pure speculation. 

Religious organizations were not required to perform interracial marriages.
Religious organizations have not been required to teach the Theory of Evolution.  

Research on locations where same-sex marriage is currently legal has elucidated two weak examples:

After same-sex marriage was made lawful in several states, a Catholic-based adoption agency closed after running into legal troubles regarding same-sex couple adoptions.  What is less widely notarized is that the agency closed its door voluntarily.  It was not forced out, but rather took its toys and went to play elsewhere.

There is no basis to withhold children of the state from same-sex parents.  Private organizations, however, have the right to exclude.  An adoption agency established and funded by the Catholic church has every right to grant adoption to whomever they please.  The problem is, these agencies were not being funded by the Catholic church, but by the state.

Separation of church and state dictates the state probably shouldn't have been funding them in the first place.  However, this became apparent once the agencies were in violation of anti-discrimination laws.  In order to maintain state funding, agencies were asked to comply with the law.  Rather than cut the umbilical cord to the state's vault and subsist on their own, they chose to close up shop altogether.

“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill.

No, in the name of tolerance, you are not being funded.  There's a difference!  What a conflict of interest it would be if the state was funding methamphetamine farms.  The state cannot be expected to fund illegal activity.  What a notion!     

Next, a church in Massachusetts owned a piece of property on the coast with a beautiful pavilion.  The pavilion was often rented out for wedding ceremonies.  When the church refused to rent the pavilion to a same-sex wedding couple, the church lost its tax exempt status on the land.  

Tax exemption is a granted privilege.  If the tax exemption on the property was revoked, they must have been in violation of the tax exempt status.  However, to claim the loss of tax exemption is an impingement on the freedom of religion is more than a stretch.  Tax exemption should not influence doctrine.  If the church must now pay taxes on a piece of land it's renting out to wedding parties, I fail to see how that stifles worshipping where, how, or what they may.

Again, there is no proof gay marriage will impose on freedom of religion.  Laws are not allowed to be made from crystal-ball predictions.  Evidence needs something more substantial than fretful discomfort to render it viable.

There are people certain the slope from marriage equality to outlawing worship is short and inevitable.  There is no discourse--historical or otherwise--to suggest this will happen.  However, relevance is no dissuader to certainty.

There is a certain level of guesswork involved in law making.  Steps are taken to ensure a law will accurately reap the desired result.  However, ultimately it takes a courageous step forward into the unknown.

Just for a moment, let's pretend the preposterous happens: piggybacking on the passage of marriage equality laws, several sects of Christianity are illegalized.  Hindsight would be mute to claim an "I told you so" defense.  Hindsight analysis would still maintain, given the time and conditions, significant cause for a different decision was nonexistent, and propose the persecution pendulum probably scapegoated to Christianity as it was their time to take a turn being the jilted minority.

Imagine this country is a singing competition for which you are a judge.  This particular competition was founded to grant each person an equal chance to move on to the next round.  Therefore, competition rules state singing may only be judged according to measurable means, e.g., pitch, rhythm, vibrato; singing may not be judged according to immeasurable means, e.g., tonal quality, mood, or expression.  

A singer walks in who makes you immediately suspect.  Their tone is shrill and jarring and their interpretation banal.  In your estimation, they are quite possibly the worst singer in the world.  They don't even deserve to be called a singer.  Still, vibrato was present, rhythm was on, and pitch was perfect.  You can't imagine anyone will ever want to hear this voice, but you're hands are tied.  You are bound by competition rules.  You pass the singer on to the next round, hoping any album made will be left to collect dust on the shelf.

One day you hear the voice again and begin to panic.  Incredulously,  someone does like the sound: the tween demographic.  The album spreads like fire: kids are singing it on their way to school, you hear it over the grocery store speakers, it plays on every station and in every home.  Your right to hear good music is gone.  The album has taken over the airwaves. 

Other parents discover you were responsible for passing the singer on to the next round.  They picket on your lawn, upset by the incessant ringing in their ears and blaming you for their headaches.  This is what you feared.  No one understands more than you, but what were you to do?  How do you explain there was no way to predict this ever would happen?  Even if there was, you were bound by competition rules.  There was no other option.  You did what you were supposed to do.

Most likely, the atrocious album will run its course.  Meanwhile, lamenting over it will not help.  One can either hermit away and listen to their own music, or fight back by finding, producing, and promoting new talent.  Goodness knows, the screechy singer had to fight her way onto the airwaves in the first place.  Preventing her was not an option; she had the right to be recognized.  

Must you stand on your porch and profess to all the other parents you support the singer?  No.  Do you have to like the singer?  No.  But, you know what you did was right.  The challenge now becomes finding a way to deal with the consequences.  Consequences for doing what's right are not always easy.

The government will not mandate churches perform same-sex marriage, that violation is too unintelligible.  However, the government has no say in how the general public perceives religious organizations.  Once marriage equality is passed, any religious organization not performing same-sex marriage has potential to publicly be looked upon as shamefully discriminatory.

The most compelling premonition on gay marriage's potential effect to freedom of religion does not involve the government at all.  It is entirely socially fueled.  

Imagine the assaulting scourge a church would receive if they openly allowed white people only.  Similarly, the public taking a less than understanding point of view toward churches who refuse to perform same-sex marriages is easy to ideate.  Society can hammer a disapproving fist harder than the government.  It would sadden me to see religious organizations treated uncivilly.  At the same time, it hearkens back to another group of people who have been treated uncivilly.  Perhaps there is education to be found on the other side of the fence.

One thing is for sure: I will personally fight to maintain the right of religious organizations to perform whatever marriages they see fit.

No doubt this manifesto has me pegged as a liberal strongly in support of gay marriage.  That is not entirely true.  As far as I'm concerned, a simpler solution would be for the government to relinquish involvement in marriage altogether; what a tangled web we weave trying to regulate a relationship with so many ethereal qualities.  

Better yet!  Rewrite the Declaration of Independence--and all linked articles--to capitulate "We DO NOT believe all men are created equal."  Not only would that dry up marriage equality, it would provide easy resolution for all minority discrepancies, and more truthfully incorporate and account for our history and the inability we have to learn from it.  Definition debating is wasted energy when recantation is accurate aim. 

And, that is what I stand for: accuracy and rationale.  I support gay marriage only as a byproduct of equality.  I support equality as a byproduct to accuracy.  Accuracy to rules, words, and meanings set forth and agreed upon.  Should the government impede its way into school systems or religious organizations that would be as inaccurate to the constitution as forbidding same-sex marriage and I will be right there alongside those opposing.

VII. I Have Many Gay Friends; I Love Gay People...But I Don't Support Marriage Equality

Own up to it: If you do not support gay marriage there is some part (however small) of homosexuality you do not accept.  If you do not accept, you cannot wholly love either.

However, by NO MEANS does this make you a bad person!  EVERY relationship is fraught with annoyances, discrepancies, and tiny habits we wish were not there.  A man stays with his wife of 60 years despite her tendency to constantly be late.  A woman stays true to her husband even though he refuses to shave his prickly mustache.  Dr. Phil once admonished if you can find someone with whom you are 80% compatible...marry them and consider yourself fortunate.  If the higher percentage of affection felt is love, then courteously round up and consider yourself loved.

When an end of term paper comes back with a 96% A grade, no one fixates on the the 4% they missed.  They embrace the A grade and celebrate! 

All too often people disregard the percentage of love and turn instead toward name calling.  A tiny level of discomfort does not make a bigot, it makes a normal relationship.  These terms are hurtful and unjust, especially when directed at such an insignificant percentage of an otherwise overwhelming amount of love.  This love should be cherished and appreciated! 

However, full acceptance of homosexuality is not necessary in order to support gay marriage.  As previously stated, it's not really about the right or wrongs of homosexuality, it's about equality.  It is possible to separate feelings from logic, just as it is possible to separate church from state.

There is an idea circulating round that marriage between man and woman has a je na sais quoi—a certain level of spirituality and connectivity unattainable to homosexuals since God intended for marriage only to be between a man and woman.

This is fine.  No one is petitioning God grant the same je na sais quoi to same-sex couples.  Religion can own the monopoly on this unachievable closeness.  If God made it unattainable for same-sex couples to have, then it will remain unattainable even when recognized by the state as legally wed.

There is a certain level of misperception here as well as selfishness.

Let’s say you attend an auction.  An old friend is there who surely will be bidding on the same item as you.  The thought to deny this person entrance to the auction selfishly crosses your mind.  That way you can ensure the item will belong only to you. 

However, you also know this friend can exhaust every last resource and still come up short.  No matter what, they will never be able to outbid you.

Even though you know they will never match your bid, granting them access and the opportunity to bid is the fair and equitable thing to do.  Chances are, competition over the item you were so worried about won't even happen.  Your friend is perfectly content with a lower-quality, government issued replica.

Again, you do not need to support homosexuality, homosexual behavior, or even gay marriage in order to support equality.  This is what makes all those sidetracking adjectives like homosexual, gay, and marriage superfluous.  

If the idea is still unsettling, then your battle is not with marriage, it's with equality.  At your very core, you believe certain people deserve less than you (sometimes even people you dearly love).  Shame need not attach itself!  To a certain extent, this is natural human behavior.  

Have you ever seen Mickey Mouse start to walk away from a crowd?  Or experienced Black Friday?  Grabbing, yelling, shoving...  It quickly becomes apparent which families believe they are more important than the rest.  We all search for that parking spot closest to the front because we deserve it more than the next person who comes along.  The person with a naturally high metabolism will indulge their ability by eating whatever they want in spite of those on a 1,500 calorie diet.  Inequality surrounds us.   

Shed some light where you stand with an ultimatum.  How comfortable are you changing the words of our forefathers to read "We believe all men are not created equal."?  Does it feel more honest?  More accurate?  Does the idea sit more comfortably than allowing same-sex couples to marry in courthouses?  If so, then it bears reiteration: an accurate target to attack would be citations of equal status in the constitution.  Rewrite those, not the definition of marriage.

As one who stands for accuracy, I would support propositions to concede all men are not created equal.  I would not vote for them, but logically I can get onboard with the whys and wherefores.  With the way things currently stand, however, I cannot support propositions to discriminate.  

It's like sitting at a desk with the answer key to a test on one side and a blank test on the other.  The correct answers are all right there, clearly identified in bright red marker.  Please do not expect me to then take my pencil and knowingly circle the incorrect answers on the blank test.

Some people lose sight of the key.  They bring specially suggested reading material to class and--consciously or unconsciously--place the material over the key, transfixed by the blank questions ahead of them.  When the test begins they frantically search through the book for answers.  

It is understandable.  After all, the book is what they have been studying all semester.  Yet, this seems to make the test so much more complicated than it needs to be. 

The administrator has specified this is not an open-book test; everyone may not have the same edition of the book.  In all fairness, though, everyone has been provided the same edition of the answer key.  With the book off the desk, the answers really become a simple matter of transference.

I'm reminded of Miss USA contestant, Carrie Prejean, who gained massive publicity when she announced she believed marriage is between a man and a woman.  

Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. 

I respect her answer and admire her tenacity.  The great thing about this country is that it allows you to have your own opinion!  Personified, however, the country is not allocated the same luxury.

Like a designated driver, we place our livelihood in the care of someone whose duty is to remain clear-headed.  The driver allows us our freedom—party all night, he says—but when it’s over, this driver is the objective mind we depend to get us safely home.

No matter what dark alleys we pass, no matter what strange and foreign lands we come to, no matter how lost it may seem we are, there is method in the madness, and there is a promise being kept.  Sobriety is aplomb.  Trust the elected cogent to get us safely home. 

The Perversion of Perverted

In a moment of sagacity that can only be described as James Lipton-esque, perverted came to be known as my least favorite word last night.  Its sole intent is to instill shame and embarrassment.  I would be incited we even allow such a word in our language if shame and embarrassment weren’t necessary experiences for growth and understanding.  However, they are tools that should be used with the GREATEST of care as they carry the potential to cause infinite and irreparable damage.  Thus, directing them at natural tendencies is misguided.

Let’s examine natural tendencies for a moment:

The sun has a natural tendency to rise each morning.  If you told the sun not to rise, it would not heed you.  The sun would still rise no matter how loud or how long you shouted for it to stay down.

The sun still rises when you pretend it doesn‘t.  Even if you tack a board across your window, shut your eyes, or sleep through the day, the sun maintains its presence. 

The sun can rise in a pure blue sky.
The sun can rise in a cloudy sky.
The sun can rise in a stormy sky.
Even on the rainiest of days, we can still tell when the sun is up and when it has set.
The sun cannot be stopped.  Sunlight is everywhere and touches everything. 

The sun rises the same the world over.  Sky is of this world and, therefore, susceptible to vary.  The sun transcends this earth and is constant.  Though differing, all skies are natural.  All skies are born under the sun.  And, no expert can predict with pinpoint precision (let alone change) the weather.

The sun is the primary source of energy for the entire earth.  All things need solar energy to survive.  ALL things NEED solar energy to survive.  To deny any species sunlight is cruel, overstepping, and arguably…perverted.

Plants—another great example of natural tendencies—also understand. 

There is no mistaking when a plant has been packed in the soil of an environment for which it was not intended.  Plants will brown, droop, shrivel, and die if their gravities are not met: direct sunlight, partial sunlight, moist climate, etc.  These are not preferences; plants need these environments to survive.  Plants display natural tendencies tangibly.  People are less transparent. 

Orchids are preordained for moist, tropical climates.  Uprooting an orchid and transplanting it in the desert—an environment where it was not meant to thrive—then becomes the act that is perverted.  The orchid’s proclivity for a moist, tropical climate is not.

Nature: World’s Greatest Teacher

If You Squint Real Hard...

My old roommate had a high definition TV.  It was interesting because, from my perspective in the kitchen, everything on his television always looked so fake.  It was really distracting.  I couldn't even take any of the somber CSI shows seriously.  I don't know exactly how to describe it...it's like the characters are on a different plane than the environment and the two are not interacting with each other.  It's almost like there is a perpetual blue screen and everything (including live news anchors) has a touch of animation. 

My parents now have a high definition television and I notice the same thing on their TV.  No one in real life looks like that.  It's as though camera definition has surpassed the reality it's chased the past 70 years and now created Supereality.  Which is impossible. 

You cannot create something super--something beyond reality--and have it exist in this reality. Reality is real.  If it is beyond reality then it is fake.  And, something that is fake cannot be real.  It is a contradiction. 

Something superreal can only belong to a superreal universe.  Which is why you can dream or believe in something beyond reality.  However, once it exists in this world, it becomes real.  This is the case with all inventions. 

To a person living in the 19th century, an aeroplane was superreal because it only existed in idea.  The moment the idea was made into a functioning machine, however, it immediately lost the distinction of being super and became part of our reality.    

Meanwhile...

Higher definition means less ambiguity.  It is stripping away falsehoods and unclarities to make something more sharp, precise, and clear.  This could go on in miniscule amounts into infinity.  Take a pie, for instance.  Let's say we want to define with the highest precision what's in this pie.  First, we take one piece of the pie and strip away all the excess.  Then, we break that piece down into cherries and crust.  Those get broken down into fruit, sugar, flour, butter, and all the other ingredients. Those ingredients get broken down and it goes on until you're splitting atoms and pieces of atoms for ever and ever.

In this case, high actually means low (which is intersting in its own right), but when it comes to high definition TV, they're actually ADDING MORE, not less!  Yes, the rate of skipped frames in lower, and yes there is an improved aspect ratio that leads to a clearer (more defined) picture.  However, the human eye has a threshold.  You can only make things so defined before the eye can no longer tell a difference.  This means television companies needed to come up with a detectable visual difference in order to get you to buy their new-and-improved higher definition TVs.  This is where all the additional filters, color correctors, color enhancers and things that make all those people on TV look so much better--better than real life, in fact--come in to play.

It's no different than any other industry out there.  The food industry waxes their apples and plumps their chicken breasts because they know they sell better.  Meanwhile, aestheticians from our thriving beauty industry plump our apples and wax our lips beause we know how important it is to sell ourselves as well.

Still...

While recently watching Meet Me in St. Louis I couldn't help marvelling how lovely the picture was.  The scene where Judy sings "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas"...breathtaking.  I daresay no one's skin has ever looked better than when filmed in Technicolor.  Beautifully rich and saturated colors, elegantly soft lines...  This is how I want me life to be: saturated, full of color, musical, defined enough to know what's going on, but soft enough to be dreamy.

Perhaps there is something to living life less defined.  An ability to blur out the imperfections; appreciate room to smudge; let the little things go. 

We let realism have its day in the 70s and 80s and, overall, it was a bit dreay and grey.  We need one or the other.  The difference is, we used to soften someone rough around the edges.  We did our best with the imperfections we were given.  The flaws were still there, just not in focus.  Blurred until appealing.  Nowadays, flaws are focused so intensely we simply remove them altogether.  We pluck them out with filters and Photoshop.  Giving the illusion they were never there to begin with.

Dreamy is one thing, but false is another. 

I have some beautiful flaws.  I try to blur them out, but I'll let you see them if you'd like.  Perhaps one day I won't have to blur so much.  Until then, I'll have to muddle through somehow.