I assume delusion is in the eye of the beholder.

Now, I am not so deluded as to think that natural marriages between one man and one woman are the same practical thing as an artificial marriage between two men, or between two women, or between any other combination of people that is not a natural marriage as it has been defined for dozens of centuries of Western European and then American history and jurisprudential tradition.

I will grant that legally, the various forms of marriage may be equated with respect to the legal rights of parties in artificial marriages, but in this case, as in many others, the law is merely being ignorant of reality in order to satisfy the term-of-art technical aspects of courtroom argumentation and opinion.

I also assume that most people arguing in support of artificial marriage being legally equal to natural marriage have not actually studied law with any diligence, especially that area of law dealing with legal and constitutional construction. From Marbury v. Madison onward, various learned opinions have been made in construing legal writings that suggest the semantic ambiguity of terms in the law may lead to rather ridiculous legal interpretations when pushed to extremes, where judges and justices do admonish themselves to avoid interpretations that cause the public to hold our court system in utter contempt.

The contemplation of such contempt leads me to a discussion of the recreational benefits of taking long walks in the summertime through Death Valley. At the same time, I'll put that on pause for the moment.

If we allow that we can push legalisms to extremes, then I offer an extreme opinion of my own. I declare that the actions of the Governor and Attorney General of California, taken in support of allowing artificial marriages to resume once again in the State of California as if they be natural marriages, are actions that amount to a state-sanctioned religious persecution of people who believe that natural marriage is only that between one man and one woman, and the legalistic lumping of all forms of natural and artificial marriage together is nothing short of a prophetic abomination. Perhaps there are some, many, or even the vast majority of us for whom this is not all that extreme.

I have no problem with the rights of any group of people who want to establish civil unions with appropriate full civil rights as long as those civil unions are not classified as the same as natural marriages. As for those people who seek to equate natural marriages with artificial marriages in all aspects, I suppose that the law allows deluded persons to roam about freely as long as they cause no harm to themselves and others. As for the state to seek such an equation, well, excuse me for being sensitive, but I feel religiously persecuted in a way that involves some reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Now, as part of my personal Christian ethic, I ought to be a peacemaker. At least, if I am not a peacemaker, then I have turned my back on the one thing that Jesus said would distinguish the followers of Christ from all others. I certainly advocate no violence toward the artificially married, whether they try to equate themselves with naturally married couples or not. Instead, I look at what society in general seems to be telling me, and telling anyone whose views on being a Christian with a personal Christian ethic that correspond to my own, that it is time to shake the dust loose and get walking to some other place that isn't right here, right now.

It would not be an easy thing to turn my back on America and walk away. I was born at the beginning of the Space Race in 1958 as an American citizen, the first child of a natural marriage of the two American citizens that are my natural parents, and I am a Regular Army disabled veteran from three decades ago. With that kind of baggage, I doubt there is any nation on this rock that would want to have me. For this reason, I have a great interest in the recreational benefits of taking long walks in the summertime through Death Valley.

The geography of Death Valley is amazing. Apparently many centuries ago, Death Valley was actually the top of a mountain range that collapsed into the widening rift between two adjacent tectonic plate formations that are still spreading apart, such that while the floor of Death Valley is the lowest point on the North American continent, there are still miles of sediment to go through before reaching the bedrock that was once the tops of those early mountains. The mountain ranges between Death Valley and the Pacific Ocean insure that most of the rain that could have reached Death Valley was lost long before it could reach Death Valley, helping to maintain the fertility of California's Central Valley agricultural regions to the west. Whatever rain that does reach Death Valley creates a slick mud surface that allows high winds to push boulders along the desert floor until that mud dries up a few hours later.

The combination of geological evolution and arid weather means that whatever dies in Death Valley stays in Death Valley, even if it gets moved around and eaten by those flying things looking for recently deceased things on the ground. Anything that remains should get swallowed up by the terrain shortly, as if it had never existed in the first place.

Because I am unable to do anything to prevent what I see as a state-sanctioned religious persecution against me and everyone like me, I am pretty much comfortable with being as if I had never existed in the first place, as a reasonable alternative to turning my back on a Christian ethic of trying to be a peacemaker in a matter where there is no peace to be found, only abomination in the sight of God.

For those choosing to remain after I am gone, there are things to ponder that relate to the homeland security of the United States of America. An all-hazard approach to comprehensive emergency management by objectives suggests that all hazards be looked at, even if the hazard happens to be in the acts of the American federal court system.

People who have not been keeping up with current events should be aware that Iran and a number of other nations with “Death to America” on their breath will be, can be, or are already in possession of nuclear devices. Coincidentally, none of those countries is so enlightened as to sanction homosexual conduct let alone artificial marriages, and the fact that the American federal court system seems poised to formally separate us from them suggests that, given their behavior prior to, on and after September 11, 2001, any one of them would be proud to claim globally that they actually used a nuclear weapon in a one-way mailing to the continental United States through the Port of Long Beach. In fact, the sincere widespread religious beliefs in at least one of those countries would allow its people to consider national martyrdom, through a protracted nuclear exchange between them and America as their Great Satan, to be proof positive of their adherence to God's law as they believe it to be.

I am not prepared to give a reliable risk assessment of that sort of hazard of national significance, but with prior training in military staff procedures, I dare to imagine that the President of the United States has had flash orders for appropriate strike packages prepared by the Joint Chiefs in response.

If nobody hears from me from now on, it's quite possible that I'll be pointing my hiking boots east along Old Highway 80 for awhile, then north to the lowest place in North America. It wouldn't be the first time in biblical or other recorded history that somebody (or an entire nation of people set apart by God) wandered off into the desert wilderness to clear his head or avoid incoming fire from above.

More like this:

Comments

Founder Aug. 9, 2010 @ 10:39 a.m.

Let's all "pray" it is the former and NOT the latter... Enjoy your hiking and thinking about this matter.

We will await your return, To discover, what you learn...

Besides the Sun, enjoy the Stars in the evening sky take lots of water, sunscreen and have some fun, Bye Bye

0

Evelyn Aug. 9, 2010 @ 12:25 p.m.

"I have no problem with the rights of any group of people who want to establish civil unions with appropriate full civil rights as long as those civil unions are not classified as the same as natural marriages."

Exactly what I've been trying to articulate myself... Using the term marriage for same sex couples does not sit right with me. Nor will it.

0

MsGrant Aug. 9, 2010 @ 1:07 p.m.

We are but one group of people. We are all human beings. To classify humans into groups is the equivalent of bigotry. My friends would be astonished to know that they and their adopted son are in fact, based on your estimation, Unnaturals!!

0

David Dodd Aug. 10, 2010 @ 12:36 a.m.

I don't know what a "natural marriage" is. I've read a few pounds worth of Holy Bibles in various modes of translations, and for the life of me, I can't recall a mention of Adam and Eve ever getting hitched. Heck, even Abraham married his own sister, nothing natural about that unless you live in some obscure part of Kentucky. As for myself, I'm hopelessly heterosexual; I would try really hard to be gay but I'm afraid it would be a dead end, I was simply born this way. Sorry.

But, I have no issue with gay marriage. I also see have no issue with those who oppose it, hey, you have to be true to what you feel. I like the blog entry a lot, doesn't much matter how I feel about a couple of homosexuals that might want to tie the knot. I think that the world needs to chill when it comes to reacting to opinions about gay marriage. If you're for it, great, and if your against it, great. But the overreaction does more damage than does the opinion.

0

David Dodd Aug. 10, 2010 @ 2:06 a.m.

Mindy, were I gay, I would hope that my point of view wouldn't be any different. After all, we're simply talking about sexual preference here. And, I should've spelled that "you're" on both occasions (I pay so little attention in the comments section, it makes me ashamed!).

Anyway, my point is that it wouldn't be any more fair for homosexuals to hate on heterosexuals that are against gay marriage than it would be for heterosexuals to hate homosexuals for wishing to marry. From outside of the box, I witnessed both. It was horribly enlightening.

I'd rather that both sides just be honest with no repercussions. I think that's the first step toward a true understanding about what both sides feel. And with that, perhaps, just the part about understanding would be okay.

0

Founder Aug. 10, 2010 @ 8:28 a.m.

I'm for following the Golden Rule:

Treat others as I'd like to be treated by them,

and

When in doubt, try and error on being "kinder".

I think it is OK for others to think I'm wrong, (it happens often), but that also allows me the freedom to not agree with their point of view.

When Laws and Lawyers get involved, then matters become murky, and simple things get very complicated fast.

When the Church and or one's personal Religious Beliefs (or lack thereof) become involved, then too many folks just stop being considerate of others personal beliefs and then things can get ugly quick.

Ideally we all would endorse a policy of "live and let live" but we all have seen many situations in the news and not only from the Middle East where one takes their life into their hands to disagree with the Popular Belief for what ever reason... That is not what I'd like to see in the USA!

For all these reasons, I personally promote for Freedom of Speech and I can then choose to listen and or read blogs like this, or not, as I choose... and maybe even then reply, if I feel I have something to add to the discussion, that is POSITIVE .

0

Evelyn Aug. 10, 2010 @ 8:36 a.m.

Mindy, Mindy, Mindy, smh. . .

God loves everyone.

Whether or not one believes in God, God still gives everyone the same rights and choices. Humans have free choice.

And, yes, only God knows what will happen.

0

a2zresource Aug. 10, 2010 @ 10:45 a.m.

I plan on inserting myself into this comment thread later, as my time is limited this morning, but I am deeply appreciative of the tone of these comments so far.

I forgive nobody as nobody has trespassed upon me and needs to be forgiven, even if I am truly small-minded and bigoted, for the statement of that as The Truth should be of no offense to anyone. I hope that anyone who couldn't handle reading this blog post all the way through finally gets to the part where I utterly destroy myself over several picturesque paragraphs, as they may feel much better thinking of me as carrion for scavenging birds then. I aim to please.

0

SurfPuppy619 Aug. 10, 2010 @ 12:38 p.m.

Heck, even Abraham married his own sister, nothing natural about that unless you live in some obscure part of Kentucky

LOL...I have actually been to Kentucky-nice place. Flew into Nashville, TN and drove up.....Nashville is very nice too!

0

SurfPuppy619 Aug. 10, 2010 @ 12:47 p.m.

"I have no problem with the rights of any group of people who want to establish civil unions with appropriate full civil rights as long as those civil unions are not classified as the same as natural marriages."

Exactly what I've been trying to articulate myself... Using the term marriage for same sex couples does not sit right with me. Nor will it.

By blueevey

My exact position too- about 3 years ago.

I changed my view.

I don't care if gays get married-what THEY do in their life has no affect on my whatsoever. If they want to get marriage brain damage like hetro's-have at it.

Gays getting married is not going to break down or wreck marriage for hetro's or do any of the other perposterous things mentioned in prop 8. The majority of all marriages todya end in divorce anyway.

The arguments used supporting Prop 8 today were the same arguments used 60 years ago in the south to keep education separated by race. What Brown v Topeka Board of Education did to the integration of education in 1954 (by putting an end to segregrated education) is what Prop 8 has, indirectly, doen with gay marriage-put marriage on the map to anyone that wants it.

0

Evelyn Aug. 10, 2010 @ 1:36 p.m.

As far as I know, the Bible doesn't say anything against interracial marriages.

Funny that you mention divorce, surfpuppy, I had originally added something about divorce and the divorce argument to my comment but edited it out... Using the divorce argument, or the marriage is just "a piece of paper, so, what does it matter?" argument (as I've heard used) exposes what marriage has become, and not what (I think) it should be.

0

SurfPuppy619 Aug. 10, 2010 @ 4:01 p.m.

As far as I know, the Bible doesn't say anything against interracial marriages.

I’m not talking about the bible-this is America, not the bible.

Not everyone believes in the bible, nor have religious affiliation. Stop projecting religion as a legit reason.

As for divorce- I never said it is what marriage should be about-just pointing out a documented fact.

My rule is simple, I don't worry about what someone else is doing as long as it is legal and it does not harm or affect me nor anyone else.

0

a2zresource Aug. 11, 2010 @ 3:04 p.m.

RE #1:

I learned in the infantry school to alternate pairs of combat boots from day to day... and use lots of socks.

0

a2zresource Aug. 11, 2010 @ 3:27 p.m.

RE #2:

Insistence by groups seeking the protection of "language equivalence" more or less prompted the introduction of the term "natural marriage" which corresponds to the term "marriage" that Utah was forced to adhere to before it could be admitted as a state, shortly after outlawing polygamy to gain admission into the Union.

0

a2zresource Aug. 11, 2010 @ 3:32 p.m.

RE "We are but one group of people. We are all human beings. To classify humans into groups is the equivalent of bigotry" in #3:

For taxonomy/biological classification purposes, the above quote may be true, but it has little or nothing to do with the fact that Californians are a select group that voted for a California constitutional amendment, and it is not true that all human beings are Californians who are electors of the state, eligible to vote on California ballot initiatives.

0

a2zresource Aug. 11, 2010 @ 3:39 p.m.

RE #4:

The denial of rights goes precisely where this blog post is pointed at, where the rights of persons who believe that natural marriage is between one man and one woman are subject to religious persecution by acts of the state.

It may be instructive that one side in the debate may not recognize any compelling state interests in the state accounting for natural marriages that naturally produce children as opposed to other forms of marriage that do not.

0

a2zresource Aug. 11, 2010 @ 3:44 p.m.

RE #5:

"Natural marriage" is what has been happening naturally for thousands of years, as a vital procreative process of socially-acceptable form that continues the species and insures inheritance rights.

I can only assume Adam and Eve were hitched by God. Mo marriage certificate for them is currently available at the County Public Law Library or from any other source.

I have no problem with gay marriage, either. My problem is with the equation of natural marriage with all other forms of marriage in all aspects, when the vast majority of ordinary reasonable people can plainly see that they are not the same in all aspects, legal or otherwise.

0

a2zresource Aug. 11, 2010 @ 3:58 p.m.

RE #13:

The arguments 60 years ago AND their resolution for racial educational equality had absolutely no impact on American foreign relations, or if those arguments did, then nobody got rich writing about it and so we have no real evidence of it. I declare that the arguments NOW on equating natural marriage with any or all other forms of marriage DO have a foreign relations impact at least to the extent that they may prompt religiously-motivated anti-American terrorism, based previous behaviors of nations sponsoring such terrorism while wanting to acquire nuclear weapons technology and while proclaiming "Death to America."

Any attempt for people well-versed in all-hazard emergency management planning and mitigation of hazardous risks of national importance to ignore the above cited risk more or less resembles the current administration's approach to BP before the Deepwater Horizon platform blew up, went under, and gave free oil to people living in the Gulf of Mexico.

0

thestoryteller Aug. 16, 2010 @ 10:32 p.m.

Attacking someone's position on an issue is different than attacking the person. I'm sure aszresource knows that.

If a person doesn't believe in gay marriage, than he/she shouldn't marry gay. Why does the right have to tell others what to do?

Blueevy: What if a person doesn't believe in God? I do not. Why should I, a person who lives in a country with religious freedom, be forced to follow the dictates of those who do? I believe gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and is no worse than if blacks or other minorities, were denied their rights. If gays are not treated equally, then I don't believe they should have to pay tazes, because they aren't being treated equally.

Maybe your God doesn't believe in gay marriage, but the God of the gays does.

0

a2zresource Aug. 18, 2010 @ 3:23 p.m.

I believe that gay marriage exists as a form of artificial marriage, that it is not the same for all legal purposes as natural marriage. Arguing that gay marriage or any other form of artificial marriage is the same as natural marriage falls as soon as there are compelling state interests to differentiate between natural marriage and artificial marriage. The greatest difference I can see is the one our elected leaders spend no time talking about in public: continuity of government. I accept that for most people, continuity of government is a total non-issue, but then again most people have busy lives and never spend any time thinking about what government is supposed to be doing for us in the first place. They just expect government to be there, even if it is due to collapse by poor design and hastily-contrived implementation.

If I am not incorrect, then my God is everyone's God, even if many don't realize the truth of it yet. I accept that all of us are doing exactly what it is that God expects us to be doing, rightly or wrongly, and the judgment of that for each of us is one day closer today than it was yesterday. As it was said many centuries ago (at least I believe it was so said), the Good News would fall on many ears like seed grain on the ground, so that some of it would blow away, another portion would be taken by hungry beasts of the air, but for some, the Good News would take hold and grow to be something great and fruitful.

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close