With the overturning of Michigan’s “ban on same-sex marriage” I feel obliged to point out a few matters that ought to be addressed in it’s wake.
First to the women who filed the lawsuit, allow me to say that you garnered some measure of respect from me in the fact that between the two of you, you have adopted three special-needs children and that your desire for their care was said to be the reason for filing said suit. If that was the case, truly the case, why not just make out wills that clearly identified your sexual partner as the person you wanted to have legal custody of your child/children. I mean, just from a pragmatic point of view, that would seems to be the least problematic, most direct means of securing that goal. Smart people do that all the time. So, why not do that?
Secondly, to the state attorney general: don’t give up, you are fighting for the majority of Michigan’s voters who overwhelmingly approved that law. Join with those states who are taking this fight all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.
So, if you are still with me, let me point out just a few things that stand out in this case on the back-end:
1. This was never about the children. It is a shameless tactic of liberals to bring children into a fight and use them as human sheilds in the face of common sense. As I said, if it was simply “about the children” there were several legal routes open to these women to address the care of these children that never involved going to court. Besides that, if these women truly loved these children, they would have ended their liáson and entered into a normal, natural relationship, because, both of them being nurses, would know the risks associated with their lifestyle and would seek to create an environment where these children could be loved and cared forwhere they could experience the love of a mother and a father.
2. This case proved that scientific data is ignored in political matters. This was the first time that a state employed the tactic of using established and, so far, incontrovertible socio-scientific data in its defense of its marriage laws. When it came down to it, one judge decided not to be bothered by the facts and endorse a detrimental choice. What else is new?
3. This case proved that an equally applied law means nothing against a political agenda. In every state where same-sex marriage isn’t recognized, it is because the state, and by that we mean its citizens, have decided to reduce administrative clutter and only give legal prefference to one particular union, a union that promotes societal stability, a union that produces and raises the next generation of future citizens. “But what about gays?” someone will ask. What are “gays”? They are black, asian, caucasion, yellow, red, men, and women that practice homosexuality. Guess what, when the law is applied, it is applied to people who practice heterosexuality equally as well.So, is the political agenda to promote homosexuality? No, I don’t think so. I think the agenda is to spread fear, distrust, anarchy, to cause people to desire a dictatorial totalitarian regime that will set everything right, and establish order so people can just get back to living their little lives.
You see, being both a God-fearing man and a freedom-loving human being, I realize that the truest freedom is brought about through autonomy, through self-law. But I realize that when you look for a law to rule your members, you really need a king in your heart. If I were to unseat this ruler in my heart, this king who has given me two laws, just two, “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself”, the havoc I would unleash, havoc that is slowly being unleashed by black-robed oligarchs and elitist liberal politicians, and I have to weep.