Gay marriage is a hot topic nowadays, especially with the Supreme Court in the middle of deciding whether the laws adopted by various States that do not allow same-sex couples to wed are constitutional or not. Many wait in eager anticipation of a decision and have put forward their arguments regarding the topic. One of the main opinions is rooted in the idea that marriage is a “civil right” and consequently, the government must grant such rights to all people.

The gay marriage supporters have done a clever job of branding the issue, choosing to refer to it as “marriage equality” as opposed to “gay marriage” and framing the issue in the context of a “right”. After all most people, especially in our politically correct world, dare not speak out against “equality” or “rights” and thus are dissuaded from developing any opposition. Psychologically, a cognitive dissonance develops when speaking against equal access and denying others opportunities.

As I always do, instead of looking at the issue in an isolated manner, I have taken a step back to analyze the issues behind the issue.

Let us examine the concrete idea that the Supreme Court has the ultimate decision-making power on the constitutionality of the issue. I personally disapprove of the State’s notion that it retains the power to regulate contracts between private citizens. After all, what makes the Supreme Court so supreme? By the mandate of the law? By the stroke of a pen on paper? What gives the court, composed of chosen (not elected) judges, the right to dictate what goes on in the private affairs between two adults? If the court can tell John Q. Public with whom he can and cannot associate, then does the court not also have the “power” and “legal authority” to tell everyone else from whom to buy groceries? How about telling everyone else which financial planners to employ, or with whom to make friends, or whom to date, or where to go to church?


From a libertarian standpoint, each individual owns and is in control of themself; thus each person has the power to decide with whom they associate.


In a completely free society, this analogy meets its own self-imposed limitation when the argument is carried out to an extreme—if individuals can liberally choose whom they wed, John Q. Public could also choose to marry a stapler, a dolphin, or his sister.


All joking aside, allow me to further the point: We (the people) created the government (via the constitution) and its subdivisions as our agent, so when did we lose our power to stop our own creation from telling us what to do? Do infants tell their parents who wears the pants or vice versa? The Supreme Court is composed of nine judges, men and women who are as human as everyone else. With what supreme judgment and wisdom do they retain the right to tell millions of Americans what to do? How can Judge Roberts, for example, use such a long reach to dictate what Frank and Mary can legally and privately engage in on the other side of the country?


If this is the “land of the free” then why must we seek the approval of government-appointed bureaucrats to decide whether particular private relationships are officially recognized?


At one point, it never used to be this way.


Modern society arrived at the State-sanctioned concept of marriage in recent human history. Before the 1700s or so, marriage was solely a private matter and the religious sacrament was governed by the church. The State had no hand to play in the matter. So, if you lived in England in 1599, for example, in order to get married, John and Sue went to their local religious leader in the church, and then became man and wife.


So what happened? The answer is simple: taxes.


By the end of the 18th century, governments realized that when a married couple died, money and property (new arenas which were ripe for taxation) passed onto the next generation. Legal questions also arose if one parent had a child with another person (or a bastard), and the rightful legal heir came into question. Hence, the State gradually invaded this arena, and the result is that presently marriage is strictly a civil matter. This is why two people can be wed nowadays without ever going near a church—a quick visit to Vegas or a courthouse will suffice.


Finally, the last time I checked, marriage has already been defined in the Old Testament. The caveat, however, is that before Christ, the biblical model of marriage was polygamy—a system largely unwelcome and poorly tolerated in the USA, unless you live in Utah or many other non-Western societies. Accordingly, for all those crying out for “equality” in marriages, all unions will not be equal if polygamy is excluded from the equation; hence “marriage equality” fundamentally entails recognition of all non-traditional marital paradigms.


At this point, I wish to introduce the dangerous leap: for anyone who seeks the government to define (or allow) marriage in any other way, that person is essentially asking the State to re-define a traditionally religious sacrament to fit the State’s viewpoint. If that does not unsettle you, then why should any government entity or the Supreme Court stop there? Why not legally re-define creation? What about evil or sin? Why not give Lucifer a new name and “re-brand” him as a hero-renegade who was unwilling to bend to authority?


The solution you ask? Very simple. Leave the issue where it began—in the church—and let it remain a religious sacrament, as it originally started in the Judeo-Christian tradition thousands of years ago all before the Supreme Court, the US Constitution and America ever existed.




Dr. C.H.E. Sadaphal

Do you feel like this content is valuable? Then share it!
Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Opinion, Politics, Religion
  1. Jonathan says:

    Very intriguing. The last two paragraphs certainly will get the brain juices flowing. This highlights yet another example of a political philosophy going head to head with a moral/religious one. I believe it’s healthy to keep the two separate and distinct, cognizant of the mental dissonance. It becomes unhealthy when either ideal is compromised, watered down or molded to fit the other, especially when used to justify a belief for personal/group gain. That’s when the SHTF.

  2. Tom says:

    Yes, the marriage equality lobby conveniently parades around when it comes to gay marriage, but any other model is “wrong” or “unjust.” just another example of selective terminology and doublespeak masking the contradictory foundation of its users.

  3. Liza says:

    I really don’t know what all the fuss is about. If Frank and John Q. want to be gay and married, how does that affect my life? How do two people minding their own business and living a civil and peaceful existence affect anyone else or give anybody the right to tell them what to do? Anyone who says the govt can dictate who can and can’t wed must then also agree that they can criminalize interracial and inter-religious couples to wed. I thought as a society we’ve all moved on from those ignorant times.

  4. FreeEverything says:

    I have solved the whole dilemma in one question: Ask any heterosexual when they “choose” to be straight.

    • CHE Sadaphal says:

      I see where you’re going with that but … I believe your argument falls apart if one assumes a genetic “coding” or predisposition toward homosexuality. First, from a biblical standpoint: a perfect, divine Creator would not preconceive any person in any sin, because sin does not originate from, nor is spawned by, total sinlessness (If you’ve never read the Bible now comes the science). Second, if preference for a same-sex partner is biological, then from a Darwinian standpoint, the trait must confer some sort of survival advantage … meaning the trait allows is owner to better adapt and survive, increasing the chances of passing those genes along to subsequent generations. Everyone can thus have “Trait X” so the world can share the benefit(s) and live longer repeat the process. Same-sex preference acts in the exact opposite direction since it prevents procreation and is biologically maladaptive (which, in and of itself is another point). Third, if truly genetic in origin then there should be a consistent, 100% (or very high) correlation between sexual preferences and identical twins and a 50& correlation among fraternal twins (recognizing that identical twins are not 100% genetically identical – google “copy number variants”). There have been a number of studies on this which have all demonstrated inconsistent results (list not exhaustive): Whitnam et al. (1993); Bailey et al. (1993); Kallmann (1952); Heston et al. (1968). I personally think what makes the most sense is if same-sex preference is viewed in the context of continuum, with total homosexuality on one end and total heterosexuality on the other. This allows room for bi-sexuality in the middle and differing proclivities along the spectrum. This way, just as a man may develop a preference for tall blondes, someone else can develop a preference for something else. Furthermore, an environmental explanation for preference development also explains why adults psychologically tend to use their opposite-sex parent as a “blueprint” or “template” for their future mates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Sign-up and get new posts straight to your inbox!

Simple Share ButtonsDo you feel like this content is valuable? Then share it!
Simple Share Buttons