The Implications of New York “Marriage"

So, New York has effectively eliminated marriage. Same-sex “marriage” has now created a breach in the institutional wall, a vulnerability than can be exploited to allow other domestic relationships to acquire the status of “marriage” as well. The implication of this is that, in principle, any domestic relationship among adults must have the same, equal entitlement to “marriage” as any other domestic relationship. New York style “marriage” must no longer be limited even by parentage or association. Why? Because marriage has been based historically and legally only on the one particular relationship in nature that directly implicates biology and sexual reproduction. This is the sexual relationship that is possible only between a man and a woman.

New York and other “same-sex marriage” states, by offering legal status within the existing institution to relationships that are not based on or related to biology and sexual reproduction (i.e., non-sexual relationships), have chosen to ignore this basis. But, then, because of constitutional constraints, they are now in the position of having effectively excluded themselves from the option of ever assuming that the nature of the conjugal relationship may, indeed, be sexually reproductive. Why? Because, within the context of the statutory scheme that is marriage, it cannot be legally assumed without contravening US constitutional law, that, under the same circumstances, the conjugal relationship is based both on the relationship that directly implicates biology and sexual reproduction and, also, that it does not. It will have to be either one or the other. The basis of these state’s “marriage” statutes cannot be both without running afoul of federal constitutional protections.

The reason for this is because discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal in the US, and to even assume that the nature of the relationship where it concerns some couples is sexually reproductive (for example, where it concerns opposite-sex couples), but it is not where it concerns some other couples (e.g., same-sex couples), can only be achieved by impermissible classifications. It would require observing and taking into account the gender composition of couples, and in “same-sex marriage” states, the state must be blind to gender. Thus, to uphold the principle of equality and the rule of law, the sexual genders of domestic partners must not be taken into account, and neither must any assumptions about the nature of their relationship be permitted. “Same-sex marriage” states may only assume that the relationship between persons wanting to marry is a consensual, domestic one, but they may not be permitted to assume that it is one related to biology and reproduction. All adults in a domestic situation, then, who desire the legal status of “marriage” must have that entitlement as these states would have no conceivably important or legitimate governmental interest to exclude any of them.

Furthermore, to continue limiting “marriage” only to domestic relationships when these constitute an association of two persons, and to exclude those domestic relationships that are an association of more than two persons, impermissibly discriminates on the basis of association for no discernibly good reason, and infringes on that right.

There is no longer any reason, then, why New York and other states that have offered a legal status to non-sexual relationships should continue to deny the same legal status to persons of close parentage or to associations of more than two persons, since there can be no legitimate assumptions about the nature of these relationships that would hinder them from establishing a domestic relationship that would entitle them to the same legal status.

Put simply, there is nothing wrong or illegal about two or more people living together, whether these be friends, family members or lovers. If a legal status is offered to some people living together, then the principle of equal treatment under the 14th amendment requires that this same legal status must be offered to all people living together.

Same-sex marriage states have effectively instituted legal partnerships for domestic relationships and have eliminated marriage as it is related to sexual relationships.

These are some of the implications of same-sex marriage.

The Rational Acts of Anders Breivik

Talk about Anders Breivik being an insane lunatic is rubbish. The man is not insane. His murderous act, though utterly deplorable, was quite rational if one understands his premises. Anders Breivik was quite rationally attacking, in a kind of opening act of war, those whom he saw as the true enemy of Western culture and civilization: the leftwing progressives, the multiculturalists and globalists, the promoters and enablers of multicultural immigration, the ones who are engaging in the process of tearing down the edifice of historic Europe in order to rebuild a globalist, utopian vision of it, as he, himself, makes very clear. Thus, he perceives his victims as traitors to Western culture and civilization, and the penalty for treason is normally death.

The reason he is not insane is because of this distinction: one might characterize Hitler as a deluded madman because an important target of his persecution and attacks, the Jews, was a dubious one at best, with no credible connection to the problems that were facing Germany. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and communists, in general, were deluded more by envy than madness, and they waged their class warfare based on historical class distinctions, targeting property owners who controlled land and resources, the historical aristocracy and merchant class, which evolved in their jargon into “capitalists”, and opposing these to the landless peasants and workers. In both these utopian visions, it is doubtful that any of these classes were true obstacles to a more perfect world.

Anders Breivik may have been less ambitious, but his target was spot on. His attack was waged on those who embrace an ideology that has put into place a policy that runs contrary to the preservation of, and undermines, historical Western civilization; an ideology that sets willfully in its sights the deconstruction of an historic, culturally Christian Europe and the replacement of this with a universalist, secular, humanist one.

I believe that he may have understood that Muslim immigration was being used as a wedge by leftwing, multicultural globalists to lever their one-world, secular, humanist utopia into existence. It was a means through which they would undermine European national identity by establishing the norm of cultural equivalency, where no civilization or culture is superior to any other, and to replace national identity with a global one, so that people would identify themselves first and foremost as “global citizens,” a term used by U.S. President Obama about himself in a 2008 speech in Berlin.

Are his premises incorrect? Were not the targets of his actions truly the enemies of what he envisioned for Europe? If so, then Anders Breivik may have been a very frustrated man, but he cannot have been insane. He clearly identified the enemy and waged an attack on them. It was a very rational act for someone making war.

What is deplorable is the means that he used to wage his war. He could have done it upon the battlefield of ideas, through persuasion and the democratic process. But we cannot know his level of frustration and how he may have calculated his act, whether or not his calculations will create the circumstances that will enable his vision to be realized, or whether these will end in failure. Only time will tell.

One thing is certain, however: his actions have put the spotlight more emphatically not just on the problem of Muslim immigration and integration, but more importantly, it has put it on the entire multicultural, globalist project that has done so much to create this problem in the first place.