About What I said…

Musée_Boyadjian_MRAH_20_11_2011_Assiette_mariage_DelftA while back I said something like “The government shouldn’t tell you whom to marry.” The Catholics will be outraged. Everyone else will be snickering and thinking they caught me… either in a lie or proving that I’m not a real Catholic.

But it’s kind of deceptive for only one sentence. Because, like a lot of things, this belief has a good deal of context that changes things a bit.

In an ideal world, where the laws reflect the society, and society should reflect natural law. Because, well, fighting natural law is kind of like fighting gravity. You can change the language, change the culture, change the way people think about this act or another. There’s
that lighthouse reality that states that a fact is a fact.

So yes, I believe that Natural Law should dictate who should marry. But the government isn’t about me, or even about Natural Law anymore, so what I believe is irrelevant. The justice system is taking off with our laws and doing whatever they feel like to them. It’s wrong, and some day the people who made this possible and benefit from it, will regret it when they discover they aren’t special anymore. Then it will become clear that they opened the door to oppression for themselves… as well as everyone else.

Law used to reflect natural law. People used to believe in natural law. But just because they believe in something else, doesn’t mean that natural law has changed. What has changed, is what is forbidden. IF what is forbidden stops reflecting reality as it is perceived, we loose that precious commodity that we take for granted called Rule of Law.

If you don’t have it, laws are just another dumb piece of paper, signifying nothing. If this trend continues (and there is no reason to think it won’t), this day becomes closer and closer. If it isn’t here already. THIS is why so many conservative radicals are pissed off about how many laws there are. Because if no one knows what the law is, then it amounts to the same thing…  as having none.  Only without the potential/theoretical freedom of anarchy.

IT used to be that in law it was acknowledged that some laws reflected natural law and some law reflected the will of the rulers. The latter was simply a force for itself. The ancient Romans where honest enough to admit and believe this and speak of it openly.

What most people seem to believe today, is that the law is civil society. BOTH sides of the argument make this mistake. I argue that we should not use the laws to make this argument, because the law as the Law–that is, Natural Law– has already failed. IF we even try to support our side by forcing everyone else to comply then what happens but it will be discredited along with the rest of the edifice. So what is true and what is enforced for the convenience of our faceless bureaucratic rulers becomes indistinguishable.

We all know what “We the People” think that DOMA is what marriage is about. But guess what? It’s not “We the People” any more.

It’s “We the Judges,” and “We the Media,” and “We the President” who are driving this train.
We the People are spitting in the wind. I just hope it’s not too late when the sleeping giant realizes this.

Beyond that, ultimately, it should be society that dictates what is marriage and what is not– not some paper in a book in some warehouse written about by Senators. Society should reflect how things actually are. Society should reflect reality, and it is from observation where these Laws come from. The closer your laws conform to Natural Law, ultimately the more stable and reasonable your society is, and the less guess work there is for new citizens.

 

Advertisements

One thought on “About What I said…

  1. Meh. Much as some folks might like to pretend otherwise, the Church doesn’t have a hard doctrinal position on civil marriage. (We simply assume, in the absence of specific evidence otherwise, that a marriage contracted outside the Church between two non-Catholics is a valid one.)

    But of course, as Trotsky said, “you may not be interested in war, but _war_ is interested in _you_”. Likewise with the Church and civil marriage.

    The state _shouldn’t_ tell you whom to marry. The state shouldn’t tell you LOTS of things that the state tells you anyway. More importantly, the state should have NO BUSINESS AT ALL dictating the definition of marriage to those who would dissent from the current state of political correctness.

    Look, if some dude and his homosexual partner want to throw a party and call it a “wedding”, I don’t see how it’s any of my business. They’re probably not going to accept my beliefs, and I’m not going to accept theirs, but it’s not like we’d need to come to blows over it. What goes on in their bedroom is not my business, and not only do I not aspire to make it my business, but I hope and pray for it to be MUCH LESS my business than it already is today.

    But that nice, tolerant, “live and let live” attitude of respecting the privacy of other people’s life choices has to be a two-way street. I can grudgingly accept that they will not change their minds, regardless of any exhortations from me and mine, so I will refrain from excessive imposition on their time. But it seems that they _cannot_ accept that no matter how many of the folks on my side get sent to the poorhouse or the penitentiary for dissent against their view of the world, _we_ will not change _our_ minds, either.

    Government is not persuasion. Government is force. It is nothing else. The only purpose served by involving government in a dispute is to gain the ability to wield lethal force against your opponents without getting your own hands dirty.

    Would you consider yourself justified, upon interrogating me to discover that (certificate from the county or no) I do not regard your homosexual union as a marriage, in pulling out a gun and shooting me? Would you consider yourself justified, having obtained your certificate from the county, in pulling out a gun and shooting the pastor of my local parish, should he refuse to officiate at the party you hold to celebrate that piece of paper? Or in shooting the head of the local Knights of Columbus for not letting you throw the after-party in their function space?

    No?

    Well, good. At least that means you’re only a hypocrite, and not a psychopath.

    But there is no fundamental difference at all between doing any of those things, and using the law to forcibly redefine the word “marriage”. Just because you don’t have to carry or shoot the gun yourself doesn’t mean it isn’t there. A law without armed enforcement behind it isn’t a law, but rather a suggestion. And y’all have apparently decided that suggestion isn’t good enough.

    So yeah. That whole “you leave me alone, I leave you alone” thing breaks down right quick, when you and yours make it clear that you’re coming for me and mine, and you’re bringing the cops.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s