So the previous template was breaking things, I’ve reverted back to the default wordpress template and as soon as I can, I’ll be putting a new fancy look’n'feel on the site.
This is a message to those who think an exclusionary definition of marriage based on your own personal presuppositions is a viable constitutional, legal, or philosophical argument.
You have a premise, that DOMA defines for federal purposes marriage as a man and a woman (this is not a universal definition, it just means that the only marriages it will recognise are monogomous heterosexual ones, it does not, and cannot state that marriage universally must be monogomous heterosexual because it does not have the power to change the universe).
However even if there were not 12 states and DC who have an non-exclusive legal definition of monogomous marriage, it would still be viable to challenge DOMA on the grounds that there is still no rational basis for the exclusionary heterosexual requirement, and given that there are 10 common forms of monogomous marriage in the 21st century.
- 1 man + 1 woman who are too old to have genetic offspring.
- 1 man + 1 woman who are infertile (and always have been).
- 1 man + 1 woman who choose not to have children
- 1 man + 1 woman who can and do have genetic children.
- 1 man + 1 man who cannot have genetic children.
- 1 man + 1 man who can, but do not have genetic children.
- 1 man + 1 man who can and do have genetic children.
- 1 woman + 1 woman who cannot have genetic children.
- 1 woman + 1 woman who can, but do not have genetic children.
- 1 woman + 1 woman who can, and do have genetic children.
If you want to apply an exclusionary principle, you have to give a rational basis for why the first 4 definitions get the rights, recognition and responsibilities of marriage, when the bottom 6 do not.
If its for reproduction, then the top 3 fail to make the cut, and 7 and 10 do make the cut.
If its for functionality, then what is measurably different between 1, 2 and 3, AND 5, 6, 8 and 9 ?
The only basis you have is your presupposition that may have been consensus in the past, but certainly is far from consensus in anthropology, psychology, philosophy, theology, sociology, and society, and that is not a rational basis argument for exclusion.
DOMA fails because it denies equal protection for all married couples, and is law, not amendment and so must go up against the 14th amendment which eviscerates it.
I realise I haven’t talked about more complex relationship forms, I wanted to focus just on the issue at hand, of equality for monogamous couples…which isn’t exactly my issue, but still something I consider vitally important.
The battle is eternal, you are right about that, but its not the battle you think, you are not the protagonist in the most important cause in human history, you are just a lowly soldier marching to the beat of fear, of ignorance and hate.
Sometimes the darkness wins some battles, when everything good we’ve achieved is brought to ash, stories of that are woven through our mythology, the Flood, Babel, Atlantis, the Fall, Ragnarok, even Sodom and Gomorrah. Your storytellers have always tried to make it out that they are stories of punishment, of victory of good vs evil, but they can’t hide what they really mean.
The stories are not about destruction and punishment, they are about change, death and rebirth, which is a very human concept.
When the first city fell, if your ideas had their way, we would have never thought about learning or progress again, but within a hundred years of each other Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley civilisations blossomed into life. Even when you destroyed Rome, less than 2000 years later, using a shoestring calculator and hydrogen/oxygen deathtrap this little fallen species visited another world.
There will always be the ignorant, the fearful, and sometimes they might find ways to bring us down. But for the next 1000 generations, anyone who can build a telescope and look up into the sky, will see a flag flying there, left by a people who took the forbidden fruit and went to the stars with it.