I just noticed this article on the Yahoo! homepage. Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled that the equal protection clause of their constitution requires that gays be allowed to marry. Being a modern, educated guy, I see no problem with this. The only reason someone would get up in arms about such a thing is if they are ignorant, prejudiced or a religious zealot.
I wouldn’t have posted about this except for two passages that I found particularly revealing about this whole issue, and in turn, about the role of government in general:
The first comes from the dissenting opinion. Three dissenting justices said that it is the legitimate role of state government, somehow, to “privilege and regulate procreative conduct.” They proceed to argue,
The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your honesty. You have hit the nail on the head. This isn’t a question of individual morality, or any other such nonsense. It is a question of whether it is the legitimate role of government to regulate procreative conduct. Think of that for a moment: regulate procreative conduct? I don’t know if it is possible for a state to do something more intrusive and dehumanizing than to tell individuals what they may or may not do with regards to procreation. Such legislative behavior is contrary to the very foundation not only of a free society, but of the existence of man qua man.
Turning our attention to another quip, Peter Wolfgang, some guy from some right wing anti-human organization says,
“Even the legislature, as liberal as ours, decided that marriage is between a man and a woman…this is about our right to govern ourselves. It is bigger than gay marriage.”
Mr. Wolfgang is also correct…sort of. This issue is about our right to govern ourselves. He simply forgets that men can only have rights as individuals. A group of men only has rights insofar as each individual member of that group has rights. Does any individual member of the state legislature have the right to dictate to another man how he may live his life? If the answer is no, the answer has to be no for the group, no matter how large it may be.
Mr. Wolfgang shows true intellectual potential. If he were to avail himself of a rigorous education, he would likely learn to clarify his thought process and avoid mistake such as the one he made today. He may one day become something other than a religious hebetudinous robot.
