This past Thursday (November 10, 2011) the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the first legislative hurdle by voting in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act. The proposed legislation, sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca), marks the first successful attempt by any component of Congress toward overturning the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. As expected the vote (10-8) ruled strictly along party lines including two Senators, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill) who had previously voted for the original DOMA. Senator Leahy, with a level of skill and venality well refined over his thirty-seven years in office, captured the moment’s success by stating:
“It is never the wrong time to right an injustice.”
Is it possible to craft a more crudely irrelevant and dismissive of the elementary points-at-issue foundation upon which one might extend such hypocrisy? After all, Senator Leahy, the very same elements in support of the 1996 Act, as well as those in opposition to it, existed when you cast your vote in favor of DOMA. The proofing nature of hypocrisy always traps the hypocritical.
An inquiry into whether or not one agrees with the idea of same-sex marriage is not the point of this dissertation; the focus of my contention is the universal and defiantly transparent abuse of the legislative process for purely political ambitions. The abhorrent, devious and divisive pandering mechanisms are emblematic of the American Political Machine feeding the Publics chronic contempt for this country’s ruling class of cross-generational elite.
As a People or a Species are we not bound by natures universally applicable law? Is our design, by its very nature, not concomitant with clear and venerable routines which define who and what we are as well as the nobility of purpose which calls one to be in pursuit of a greater cause which exists well beyond base impulse? I’m not only certain that this is the case I am absolute in the understanding that if we consider the overwhelming body of evidence the truth of it is undeniable; to do or resolve otherwise would serve only to defeat all abstracts In Defense of Reason. Even more, there would be no need for the beast of government as there would be no motive compelling one to order.
It is the construct of Creation that defines as such that we are not mere particulate matter or annelid each bound by or drawn to mutually exclusive truths; we are a Being bound by universal absolutes equal in their applicability to each in a pattern and routine in service to the perfecting of the whole. What we do, Individually, matters immensely; it is our perfecting-cause.
The specious and banal reasoning’s which accompany far too many political apparatchiks do not serve the American People; they do not serve the Common Ideal upon which our perfecting-cause depends. The process is, by far, so contaminated with the illusions of ignorance and impulse the like of which repels and repulses most Americans away from the process when it is to the process itself to which we should be drawn. You may not be able to name it and you may not immediately have a phrase or word for it but you know precisely of the torment to which I refer.
For the record, just in case someone were to suggest that my comments conceal a homophobic overbite and despite the distortion of the words etymological reference, let me be clear; I oppose tyrannical mandates of any kind that bar or would otherwise interfere with the sovereign rights of any Individual. Life is sacred as it is the portal by which all are given the opportunity to perfect their refining and purpose-driven acts; each in service to another, all affecting the greater cause of Creations blueprint of which you are an integral part; our perfecting-cause. None-the-less, we must remember that we are not mere particulate matter or annelid each bound by or drawn to mutually exclusive truths. We must never license collateral impulse which contaminates the perfecting of the whole. We must, as did the Founding Fathers of this Nation, work always toward converging upon a common ideal.
The People of this Nation (and much of the World) are caught in a great conflict which resonates at their very core; we are struggling with a lingering attachments to past practices and indiscretions and a growing and intimate understanding that the pattern producing and affecting these past indiscretions – the consequences of which we see in our Public and Private Institutions as well as our Social precepts – are not only unsustainable, they are irreconcilable with what you instinctively know to be true. It is for this one reason no GOP Candidate has command of the Public sentiment as none, save perhaps for one, possess the courage to affirm what you know to be so. Until one appears, the discontent will continue to grow and thus suspend our perfecting-cause.
Now then as it seems unfair to withhold comment on the Defense of Marriage / Respect for Marriage Act(s) and understanding that many might be curious as to the structural conflicts which saturate this menagerie with many a false premise and specious claims, I will offer what to me are among the most compelling issues to consider:
1. The Federal Government has no business being involved in the matter. It is not so much a matter of Constitutional domain as it is overt political opportunism in search of bait for luring the public toward yet another divisive anvil.
2. The fact of the matter is that Humans, by design, persist solely through the procreative act of paired-sex and notwithstanding the preponderant efforts in defiance of the facts none have yet managed to, and not for a lack of effort, alter this universal truth.
3. There are many studies which assert that there are no beneficial or distinctly measured results in favor of paired-sex relationship specifically as it relates to the rearing of a child – I’ve read many of the studies and I find them each bent on proving their preferred outcome in lieu of a specific and deliberate search for proving a universal truth. There is no paradox or conflict in truth; the only conflict that ever exists occurs when a position adverse to the truth attempts to reconcile itself by means of asserting a newly created and irreconcilable premise. As there is no need to argue the validity of the point and I acknowledge that due to the nature of this forum it would be decidedly imbalanced I will simply move to use the most obvious example, by way of a reverse query, to illustrate the issue of the irreconcilable: I’ve found no study or statistical routine which suggest that a non-paired-sex arrangement is capable of reproducing the pro-generative function or improves upon the paired-sex routine. The point being of course hi-lights a universal truth – the non-paired-sex routine is not pro-generatively capable. So then this leaves me with the following query: If there is no functional purpose of non-paired-sex relationships then what other reason for the notion can there be other than as a personal expression or indulgence? The point being is that if this is the case, and I acknowledge that if we confine the discussion simply on the grounds of a right to choose (ignoring consequential burden) and that personal choice is defensible, how then is it the prevue of Representative Government to so narrowly ally its interest to so small (roughly 4%) a segment of the population whereby the outcome effects the un-represented 96%? I believe this to be the most relevant question of all!
4. Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment which states, in part, “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” is the most common foil used in this current battle-cry. There have been numerous effort (and they will continue unless and until the Supreme Court resolves the matter) and attempts to argue the Equal Protection provision as being relevant and I confess (much to my dismay but not surprise) that the Courts have expressed a significant amount of absenteeism as to courage and judicial deference to the law and primarily for the following reason: The 14th Amendment was reconstruction-era legislation the focus of which was to cure the defect in the U.S. Constitution specifically as it related to Race and by doing so removed the discriminating issue by way of what is now known as the Equal Protection clause; the discriminating issue of Sex was similarly resolved by way of the 19th Amendment. Now then with these two issues at hand what one must consider is that the U.S. Constitution (post the 19th Amendment) recognizes “…that all men are created equal….” as applicably refined to mean “…the Creators….” created (“men”) to be inclusive of all mankind distinctly as to all Races and both Sexes. Thus being the case then the issue of same-sex, to have privity or standing under the law, would then have to be defined as either a separate Race or Sex unto itself (perhaps by Amendment to the Constitution). You may think this an absurd consideration but rest assured this very point has been a fundamental obstacle having yet to be overcome in the quest for tendering the argument before the Supreme Court. For now interested parties are left to prey upon the political opportunist, weak-minded judiciary or waging of a ware for social reorientation upon a confused and distracted public. If the thallic-like Court System is having a difficult time of orientating itself to the issue then is in not indicative of a fundamental rebuke?
5. Lastly, the various arguments in support of the Defense of Marriage Act largely revolve around various injustices which are alleged to appear in various Federal regiments such as the tax code, codified statute or various benefits associated with the numerous Federal Entitlement Programs. To suggest that creating yet another version of social-reorientation by way of government supremacy as being the only solution is to find common ground with every other Government effort in defiance of Providential Law. As stated in paragraph “1” above, this is not the domain of the Federal Government; it is a matter for each State to resolve as their preferences a citizenry will accommodate. In Defense of Reason!
We should all covet and regard the ideals and principles which further the cause of our recovery whereby seeding movement on to even greater accomplishment. Far too we witness Government needlessly busying itself with issues that are largely fabricated to projecting the illusion of purpose and conscience all the while creating divide where none should exist. With so many battles yet to be fought and eventually won, to engage in a deliberate process of fragmentation simply to indulge political impulse seems decidedly vile and an utter and complete waste of time. These efforts produce no refining and beneficial reward, in truth, the merely suspend and further degrade the process.
Whatever the action, practice, preference, temptation or vice one chooses to animate perhaps our most immediate goal should simply be that in-lieu of asserting wildly extravagant and often defiantly disparate routines one might just simply state the truth which lies back of one’s choice; this is what I want, this is what I choose and though it is not my intention to offend your senses I believe my right to do as I please is greater than the risk of adverse consequence and your right to object to its effect. Now as decidedly adolescent as this statement may appear it does possess a distinctly refreshing element of honesty and whatever it is going to be, at the minimum, I do believe we should be honest with one another about what it is.
Life is sacred as it is the portal by which all are given the opportunity to perfect their refining and purpose-driven acts; each in service to another, all affecting the greater cause of Creations blueprint of which you are an integral part.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder
