Marriage: Not An Unalienable Right

The push for so-called “gay rights” has led me to this point.  People have begun contending that gays are being denied certain unalienable constitutional rights by not being allowed to marry.  This is patently false.  The Constitution makes no mention of marriage as an unalienable right.  It is, however, an institution that exists outside of the Constitution that is used to properly confirm a unique and very special kind of love, one that allows society to continue on in the form of new life.

So I suppose the question remains, what is love?  Is the love that exists between 2 members of the same-sex valid?  No.  This is because any kind of love you can think of is unique and exclusive as a unifying force.  The kind of love that exists between a father and his children is unique and exclusive.  The kind of love that exists between a mother and her children is unique and exclusive.  The kind of love that exists between siblings is unique and exclusive.  And the kind of love that arises naturally between friends of either the same sex or opposite sex is also unique and exclusive, though sharing some similarities with the kind that exists between siblings.

All of these are unique and exclusive.  They all seek to unite in some way.  The first one I mentioned unites a father with his sons and daughters in a very unique way.  So it is for all the others I listed.  They also all have one thing in common, that to add a sexual connection that doesn’t belong is wrong.  So just as all these other forms of love are unique and exclusive, so is the love that can only exist between a man and a woman.  This love is unique and very special and to treat lifestyles that devalue this kind of love to the point of being a mere tool for carnal pleasure as being just as good is intrinsically wrong and disordered.

And so thus is the institution of marriage constrained by natural law.  The benefits offered by society that encourage men and women to participate in this institution with each other are also therefore extra-constitutional in nature.  They are simply that, benefits designed to encourage natural sexual behavior and discourage unnatural sexual behavior, not unalienable rights that everyone is entitled to.  This is no different than financial institutions offering to lower the interest rate for the remaining term of the note for a borrower who has always made his payments on time.  This is a benefit that some financial institutions offer as an incentive for good financial behavior.  Thus are the benefits offered through society to those that choose to abide by the natural law that the institution of marriage is governed by provide an incentive to participate in that institution.


One comment on “Marriage: Not An Unalienable Right

  1. colfoley says:

    Great and terrific points with this, certainly a lot to chew on and a very unique way of looking at the debate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s