Gay-rights activists could score victory at the ballot box in Maine on Tuesday, as voters head to the polls to decide whether to repeal a law that would allow same-sex marriage.
The law was passed by the Legislature and signed by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci last May, but has never taken effect. If voters uphold the law, Maine will become the first state to endorse same-sex marriage by popular referendum, energizing activists nationwide and deflating a long-standing conservative argument that gay marriage lacks popular support.
Why do we keep having the wrong debate on this issue in America?
Oh, wait a second: we can't have an honest debate of the real issues when it comes to virtually anything related to the essential enslavement of the population, lest they pick up pitchforks and torches!
And let's be straight with everyone - that's exactly what should have happened years ago with regard to "marriage laws."
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage<same-sex marriage>b: the mutual relation of married persons :wedlockc: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
Note that the 1(a)2 definition covers by incorporating the first definition for same-sex couples.
But wait: 1(a)1 is fraudulent.
The very essence of a contract embodies:
With all three being defined.
Now consider two people who married in 1945, right after WWII. They took vows that almost undoubtedly included the premise of "until death do us part" (and not by the other partner's hand!), along with a declaration of union of resource that could only be broken apart by fault, with that fault being fully assessable against the party who committed the wrong.
But over the next 30 years that premise was changed without the consent of the parties. Government stood up and modified the bargain, not because the two parties both wanted to, but because either one of them did or worse, because some other pressure group wanted it.
Even today if you walk into a Catholic (and most other Christian) churches during a wedding you will hear a variation of the old vows, in which "until death do us part" is an inherent element. Yet you will then hear the celebrant say:
".... by the authority vested in my by God and the state of XXXX, I pronounce you man and wife."
The State of XXXX has in fact rendered that vow you took a legal nullity, and what's worse, you not only swore a false oath before God but the celebrant knowingly participated in the fraud!
I often write about frauds upon the public in my Ticker columns, but this is, in my opinion, far more serious. Fraud upon the public is punishable by the government under the law, at least if you're a "little person" - the big guys, of course, get away with it daily, as we have repeatedly seen.
But fraud upon God is a different matter. He doesn't have a definition of "little people", at least not that I know of (while I may be on a first-name basis with him, I've yet to hear a booming voice from Heaven!) Indeed, most religious beliefs would make the claim that we're all "little people" in this regard, and that The Devil is perfectly happy to burn people like Paulson just as he'll take me, and irrespective of where you stood in life, in death we're all naked with our bodies eaten by snakes, with whatever is left either ascending or descending, as our acts on Earth deserve.
I find it disconcerting (to put it mildly) that those who bang the bible (or any other holy book of choice) loudest are the biggest defenders of a statist system that is an utter fraud - and a fraud upon the very God that is claimed to guide both words and deeds.
Yes, we need reform in this regard, but it is not to commit an even bigger fraud upon the public and God. Specifically, if we are to have a recognition of "marriage" at all by state actors we must bring it into alignment with what is promised and stated before God.
Marriage is a contract between two people, and must be honored and enforced as entered into before whatever view of divinity, including none if desired (e.g. a Justice of the Peace) is being called upon.
Government, if it wishes to reserve the right to disallow certain combinations or promises, must review and pass or reject those combinations and promises BEFORE issuing a "marriage license." I propose that a couple who presents requesting such a license should file their vows (including whatever terms they may accede for dissolution in the future, including property and custody rights, along with determination of fault, if any) with the license. Both the state and the respective religious institution thus would have the right to accept or reject those terms prospectively.
Having accepted those terms (if the government does) such would be indelibly filed and only enforced but never modified in the future by that very same government.
This both resolves the matter of government making ex-post facto changes to agreements and laws (which happens to be blatantly unconstitutional) and also reserves the right of both government and houses of worship to refuse to endorse combinations or agreements that they find contrary to public policy for whatever reason they so choose.
If gay people wish to be married in a house of worship that permits such, that's none of my damn business.
Using this issue as a lever to promote further blatantly-unconstitutional ex-post-facto revisions to agreements long since made by force of the state is an outrage, and one that no individual, straight or gay, should sit still for.
Btw, for those who have sent nasty comments (that I have refused to publish) claiming that this is some sort of "gay-bashing" campaign, stuff it. Here's a PDF copy of a letter I sent to the Pensacola Archdiocese bearing (in part) on this matter - in January of 2002. My views on this matter have been consistent for well over a decade, have absolutely nothing to do with whether one is gay or straight, and are not going to change any time soon. Oh, and due to the Archdiocese's refusal to even discuss this matter, I am no longer a practicing Catholic. Stick that in your respective pipes and smoke it!