The Wake

What is a definition? For example, how would the words, “sexual relations” be defined by the majority of people? Webster’s Dictionary defines “sexual” as “pertaining to sex,” and a “relation” as a “connection.” So a “sexual relation” be something like, “two people coming together to commit an act which is sexual.” I believe so, and I believe the majority of people in this country would come up with a similar definition to mine.

But who, or what, is the final arbiter that gives unequivocal meaning to words, ideas or even institutions? What if suddenly our basis from which all our morals and culture come from could be changed arbitrarily when it is in the interests of a few? Sound like a radical far-fetched idea? Let no one forget how the honor, dignity and moral leadership was stripped from the office of presidency when Bill Clinton blatantly committed perjury and obstructed justice, but walked because he created his own definition of the words “sexual relations.” And with the current crisis of some trying to redefine what “marriage” constitutes, we must never forget how the past assaults on our culture have shaped America today.

The majority of Americans do not support same-sex marriage not because they discriminate against homosexuals, but because our culture has always had strong convictions to what marriage is and symbolizes. American culture defines marriage as a bond between a man and a woman, and Americans want an institution solely to recognize that bond.

It is in the interests of any society to perpetuate the nuclear family, as the family is the strength of civilization. But the family can only be maintained if heterosexual marriages are encouraged. And a man and woman enjoy tax reductions with many other benefits granted by the government as a reward and incentive for their marriage. With marriage usually comes children and a continuous or growing population trend. Government and married citizens have always had this direct teamwork toward maintaining the population, which is no coincidence.

Marriage has never been a “right” guaranteed to all and denying it to those who do not meet its man-woman prerequisite is in no way unconstitutional nor discriminatory. States that didn’t allow interracial marriage during the 1960s were clearly making unconstitutional laws. An African-American man and Caucasian woman clearly met the guidelines for marriage but were denied for reasons of racial segregation. Homosexuals are only denied marriage by its definition alone.

Redefining marriage once would certainly lead down the path of further revisions. For example, after fully accepting same-sex marriage, who would be able to say polygamists can not get married? What about pedophilic marriages? The Equal Protection clause in the Constitution will surely be the justification used by rogue judges that will deem marriage a bond but not specific to whom, what or how many.

America openly accepting and legally recognizing gay marriage would inevitably lead to the total leniency of gay adoption as well. But a child exposed to too much masculinity and not enough femininity when maturing, or vice versa, has a better chance of becoming deficient in some way.

The Survey of State Prison Inmates in 1991, published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, shows that nearly 40 percent of inmates lived with only their mother most of the time while growing up. Because these inmates did not have a male masculine authority figure around when maturing, they lacked discipline and self-control that would have otherwise been provided.

So what effect will the long term have on children adopted by lesbian couples? And is putting children in environments more susceptible to causing misfit personality traits in the interest of the government?

If the justification for marriage is simply because of love for one another, then what would stop people from marrying their pets? Would marriage be a bond between two humans or could it be between two animals? What about the equal rights of people who remain single but would like the same benefits married people receive? Can a brother and sister with no sexual relations be eligible? If not, are they being discriminated against too?

If anyone can simply interpret meanings, definitions and institutions as suited for their agenda, what’s the purpose of language, morals and culture?

Fortunately, it is in the present day that Americans have recognized the long-term repercussions of meddling with what constitutes marriage. Perhaps, out of all this, a much-needed renaissance of the nuclear family will come, with a fresh sense of just how important men and women are to each other and our culture. And what other spectacular way can there be to symbolize this rebirth than with the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?