Here in Arizona, like many other states, we wait for a ruling on what the news outlets refer to as the "gay marriage ban". Ladies and gentleman, welcome to the world of false advertising. Well, okay, maybe "advertising" is the wrong term. Shall we call it what it is? Lying. Nothing more. Nothing less.
What is happening? (And, please note, it isn't just Arizona -- it has either happened or is happening in almost every state in the Union.) Well, Arizona, like many other states, as part of their Constitution made a definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. According to every single media outlet -- printed, radio, television, Internet -- that I can find, this constitutes a "gay marriage ban". Now, why is that?
Here's how definitions work. If we define "bleevoid" (a word I just made up to avoid conflict) as "a green and red striped circle", what do we know? We know that our bleevoid is ... wait for it ... a green and red striped circle. But we actually know a lot more. We know that a bleevoid is not an animal. It does not have four paws. It is not a tree or a ficus plant. It isn't a person. No human being is "a green and red striped circle". I suppose there are some bleevoid fans that might dress up as a bleevoid and be a bleevoid imitator, but they would not be actual bleevoids. Our fictitious item, then, is one thing ... by definition. Anything else is not a bleevoid. So let me ask you. Would you consider this a "ban on animals, plants, and people"? Well, by its nature, it does exclude these things, but the point of a definition is to ... define something. Defining something precludes everything else.
So, Arizona, like so many other states, with the vote of the people, like so many other states, determined to define "marriage" in the way that every other society in history has done as the union of a man and a woman. Is this a "gay marriage ban"? Well, I suppose, if you want to be technical, it is. It is a ban on cats marrying cats, dogs marrying dogs, women marrying fence posts, men marrying five women, four guys marrying three gals, and any other random and bizarre combination you might care to think of. (Please note: I didn't make up a single one of those possibilities. People have suggested all of them.)
It is, therefore, false advertising to suggest that a definition of marriage as it has always been defined is a "ban" on anything. What is the truth? The truth is that what will likely be overturned in Arizona as it was in California, Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma, and will be in nearly every state going forward is a definition. Make no mistake. It isn't a ban being overturned. It is a definition. When you hear "marriage equity" and "equal rights" arguments, remember this. It is not "equal rights" or "marriage equity". It is "marriage redefinition". We know this because it is a definition that is being challenged. And please note in addition that I don't have to go to religion, the Bible, or moral outrage to make this case. It simply is a fact. The aim is not "equal rights" or "marriage equity" unless they will admit that by "marriage equity" they mean "an equal definition of marriage that does not match anything prior to this and is only applicable to the new definition we give it to suit ourselves" (because, after all, they are sternly -- and arbitrarily -- denying the admission of polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, or the marrying of inanimate objects as part of their definition).
Look, you are obviously going to decide what you think is right here. Just don't buy the patent lie that it's about a "gay marriage ban." It is not about "love" or "equal rights" or any such thing. It is definitively about a marriage definition. It cannot be otherwise.
2 comments:
Two points;
1. As clarification, I don't believe any state that amended their constitutions or laws to include the definition were defining the word by doing so, but only, for legal purposes, putting that definition on paper, so to speak, to avoid confusion about what the word means, for legal purposes. Of course, this was done to head off the liars who are pretending the word means something that is more suitable to their base desires. But the definition has existed for eons, and since this tiny lobby was making a fuss, these states felt the need to clear the air. A small detail, but I thought it a good idea to reiterate the obvious.
2. We should start referring to these laws and amendments as "incestuous marriage bans" or "polygamous marriage bans" or "underage marriage bans" as each of them are prohibited as well. Why just focus on the gender of the participants? Indeed, as I confront the activists and enablers who comment in favor of these corrupt rulings on Yahoo and other places, I will now begin referring to these laws in such a manner.
1. Absolutely. In Arizona they tried "marrying" because there was no "gay marriage ban". The county clerk said, "The form requires the husband's name here and the wife's name here. Which is which?" Simple as that. But the complaint was "It isn't constitutional" ... so they let the people decide if it should be. "Do you want what has always been the definition to remain the definition as a matter of constitution?" We answered, "Yes!"
2. Absolutely! Any other term will do as well. Odd that they choose one term out of the countless available. (Okay, not odd -- indicative.) Odd that it is everyone in the media doing so. (Okay, not odd either. Again, indicative.) "We have no agenda!" Yeah, right.
Post a Comment