Mayor Andy Berke of Chattanooga wants a pro-gay ordinance to be retained, even though its premise is anti-family and anti-child, as it equates honorable marriage and family with shacking up and committed sex among homosexuals.
By David Tulis
It is important to understand how harmless and gracious Tennessee’s definition of marriage is. It does nothing to criminalize any one’s acts and does not create hostility to people who are single or homosexual. Marriage is defined in the constitution, and by replication in the Tennessee Code Annotated.
But it creates no offense against any class. It creates no aught against homosexuals.
This point is significant because it is quiet rebuttal to the claim that homosexuals are an oppressed minority. The argument is being made prior to Chattanooga’s vote Thursday on a domestic partner benefits ordinance.
Marriage is between one man and one woman. A couple whose steps toward the marital union comply with the law become husband and wife before the law, and before the public.
What is it? Marriage in a nutshell
The basic requirements of marriage are proposal, consent, holding forth, consummation and cohabitation. Marriage is solely between one man and one woman.At common law, these steps let a man and woman marry as a matter of right. Tennessee no longer is a common law marriage state; Alabama is. But the law in Tennessee obeys these principles, though marriage is said to be under state license and under state authority. Though I suggest Tennessee has wrongfully absorbed marriage into its jurisdiction, it still has a duty to defend its fundamental premises of being between one man and one woman. And its people, and its government, have done so.
Gay rule promises oppression, social anxiety
As I say, the law is not a BAN as it is described in the press. Tennessee does not BAN gay marriage. It simply defines marriage as between one woman and one man. A homosexual can go and marry anyone he wants. He can hold forth as being married. He can change his name to that of his queen. He can cohabit with his partner and share razor blades and Fruit of the Looms. He can show up at parties with his male wife and insist he is man and wife. What he lacks is that which he most covets.
That is, state sanction, state approval, state recognition. This approval he cannot have under Tennessee law. He can pretend to be married and convince his coworkers that he is married to a guy. He can convince his parents his guy is his married partner. He can convince his drinking buddies at the tavern or at the racketball court. But the state will not recognize it.
If the definition is changed in Tennessee by a pretense of external legal force, we can count on a wave of persecution, harassment, fines, penalty and oppression. The prospect is evident already in the news cycle. The overborne photographer. The besieged baker of wedding cakes. In the U.S. and in Canada, the acceptance of the subjective definition of marriage tyrannizes over the majority practice and the majority report.
Under Tennessee law, no person is being penalized for having the minority report on sexuality and marriage. If Tennessee law is pretended to have been overthrown by the federal high court, that will change. The truth of marriage to which you hold will become, in the political correctness of the hour, a position that is “unacceptable.” The establishment news media will shriek out its reports; indignation will run high. A gay spokesman and the ACLU will huff together. Someone will be ordered to resign or be fired — his evil thoughts and words having caught up with him in that public indiscretion of the taped quote or the online video, replayed for all to see.
Not knowing when to stop pushing
Gays and allies in Chattanooga say they are an oppressed minority, and want a domestic partnership ordinance affirmed by voters.
This period of shrillness will last until common people realize what has happened. The persecutions will last only until the general public realizes how far queer theory has taken the government and its law, and the millions of people sympathetic with the ideas of equal rights and fairness for gays will become angry that they’d been misled. They will turn on gay theory, gay lifestyles, gay people, gay organizations, gay benefits and the like. It will be with a special vengeance and anger the further the gay agenda is taken in this ripe moment when homosexual shares are at their peak.
When the crash comes, gay stock will plummet in value; there won’t be any buyers, and the homosexual conquest will be remembered simply as a nightmare from which it will take 20 years to clean up.
