Polygamy, Pederasty and Group Marriage
Charles H. Darrell of the Minnesota for Marriage/Minnesota Family Council forgot to include bestiality in his litany of legalized horrors that will some day be thrust upon America's families should any form of civil union or marriage be approved for other than heterosexuals.
He writes:
In the spirit of a kinder, gentler ATGD, I am not reflexively rejecting Mr. Darrell's position. In fact, I will heartily agree with him that it is wrong to force one form of morality upon another. As he ably illustrates, the real heart of the divide is that Americans can't vote on definitions.
What we have here is a failure to define our terms.
My "tolerate" is his "force upon." His "morality" is my "force upon." You see why we need a vote to settle this.
I don't think we should stop at voting on the definition of marriage. After all, as I'm sure Darrell would agree, public voting on definitions is a slippery slope, and soon we will be expected to vote on other terms. I know our governor in Minnesota would like to clear up once and for all that a fee is not a tax. Let's vote on it!
Zygote or human being? Insurgent or terrorist? Evolution or intelligent design? Torture or interrogation? Lobbying or bribe? Self-defense or nation-building? Legal monitoring or illegal eavesdropping? Compliment or sexual harrassment? We want the people's definitions and we want them now.
So let's try to get the entire list out of the way at once.
That way citizens can prepare for the quiz all year. We can drill on a list of definitions, like kids studying for a spelling bee.
There will be a few details to work out. Will definitions get an up or down vote? If so, who gets to put forward the definition? And if a definition is rejected, what will we do next? Or, will the test be multiple choice with the definition getting the most votes prevailing?
Never mind, let's just hate each other.
He writes:
The reality is that a civil union is just marriage by another name; and leaving the "marriage business" and getting into the "civil partnerships business" is just a bait-and-switch scheme designed to force one form of morality upon another. The only business the state should "get into" is representing the will of the people by allowing them to vote on the definition of marriage.
In the spirit of a kinder, gentler ATGD, I am not reflexively rejecting Mr. Darrell's position. In fact, I will heartily agree with him that it is wrong to force one form of morality upon another. As he ably illustrates, the real heart of the divide is that Americans can't vote on definitions.
What we have here is a failure to define our terms.
My "tolerate" is his "force upon." His "morality" is my "force upon." You see why we need a vote to settle this.
I don't think we should stop at voting on the definition of marriage. After all, as I'm sure Darrell would agree, public voting on definitions is a slippery slope, and soon we will be expected to vote on other terms. I know our governor in Minnesota would like to clear up once and for all that a fee is not a tax. Let's vote on it!
Zygote or human being? Insurgent or terrorist? Evolution or intelligent design? Torture or interrogation? Lobbying or bribe? Self-defense or nation-building? Legal monitoring or illegal eavesdropping? Compliment or sexual harrassment? We want the people's definitions and we want them now.
So let's try to get the entire list out of the way at once.
That way citizens can prepare for the quiz all year. We can drill on a list of definitions, like kids studying for a spelling bee.
There will be a few details to work out. Will definitions get an up or down vote? If so, who gets to put forward the definition? And if a definition is rejected, what will we do next? Or, will the test be multiple choice with the definition getting the most votes prevailing?
Never mind, let's just hate each other.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home