The Quiet Conservative June 4th, 2008
Ellen is Not Getting Married
Sorry to all you Ellen DeGeneres fans out there. Ellen is not getting married. While she announced
on her television show she was getting married to her long time girlfriend, Portia DeRossi, saying it
doesn't make it so. Words have meaning say the Democratic Party elite. They are right. Words do
have meaning and they are used to express concepts. Some concepts are malleable and some are
not.
“Marriage” is a word with a specific concept. It is the joining of a man and woman. It carries
both religious and secular meaning. The concept of marriage predates the United States. In fact,
marriage is the oldest human institution. It is the foundation of all human civilization. In Western
Civilization it has always carried both the religious and secular context in society. It has never
changed. So the meaning is not malleable.
“Homophobia” however, is a malleable word. In concept it means whatever an activist wants it to
mean. If you oppose gay marriage you are ‘homophobic’. If you oppose the moral concept of
homosexuality you are homophobic. If you have a religious objection to the act you are
homophobic. If you believe homosexuality is a disorder, not a valid lifestyle you are homophobic. If
you disagree with teaching children in public school that homosexuality is equal, normal, and as
acceptable as heterosexuality, you are homophobic. If you believe homosexuality can be cured you
are homophobic. The label “homophobic” is used to disparage and dismiss any objections. The
label is used to crush dissent and still any voice of opposition. This is the value of using a malleable
word.
When Ellen and Portia go through whatever ceremony they plan, they will no more be married
than they were beforehand. That is the power of a word that is not malleable. As the rural fellow
said- “I can call my dog a cat but it doesn't mean it can climb a tree.” Calling them married doesn't
make it so.
In California the homosexual agenda was advanced remorselessly over the years. Starting with the
changing of the basic understanding of what homosexuality was. Rather than a disorder or an
immoral act, homosexuality was relabeled as an orientation and that being ‘gay’ was inherent. It
wasn't an act, it became and identity. By accepting this premise, which is false, the house of cards
was built in both the public opinion arena and in the courts and legislature.
Even though Californians voted in 2000 for Proposition 22 stating marriage was defined as the
union of a man and a woman, the fact the state had granted in civil unions an almost equal status of
gay relationships to marriage meant the California Supreme Court had only a small step to take to
overthrow the final legal meaning of marriage. Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote: “In light of
these circumstances, we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage (a man
and a woman) does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny
equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples.”
It’s hard to argue with the man. He’s right. The state had so damaged the secular standing of the
family there wasn't much left. In the grand liberal tradition of destroying tradition, California had
gutted the meaning of family in the structural sense. Why not do it in name also?
Oh, there is one little problem with the thundering applause of people who behave as homosexuals,
by eliminating the state interest in the unmalleable word of “marriage” they eliminated the logical
objections to all other permutations also. They made the word malleable. If three men want to get
married, how can California object? If four men, three women, and a goat want to get married, what
state interest is there in preventing this? Polygamy? Sure. Incest? Absolutely.Polyandry? No
problem. What are you? Bigoted? No. In California by removing any remaining semblance of sanity
the family structure is wide open for experimentation. Their new marriage license actually will say
“Party A” and “Party B” instead of “Husband” and “Wife”. One can only assume with twenty six
letters in the alphabet it is going to get interesting in California.
It is going to get interesting nationwide too. Massachusetts restricted its gay marriage to people
who lived in Massachusetts. California makes no such restriction. If a two people who practice
homosexuality travel from Kansas to California and go through the marriage ceremony, when they
fly back here will they demand to be considered married here? Of course they will. The Federal
Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, decreed individual states do not have to recognize these faux
marriages from other states. However, just like the California Supreme Court can overturn their law,
the Federal Courts can overturn the DOMA. This may well end up in the Supreme Court where
similar efforts met with support before. In Lawrence v. Texas the Supreme Court found the state
had no business in regulating sexual behavior, striking down sodomy laws. How would they view
marriage?
If the United States Supreme Court found the state had no compelling interest in the structure of
the family, all individual state laws or constitutional amendments would be shattered. California has
a constitutional amendment on the ballot for November to change the California Constitution to
define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Even if it is passed, and since Proposition 22
was passed overwhelmingly, it might not matter for California. The California Supreme Court has
refused to stay their ruling until after the election. Therefore, by performing homosexual ‘marriage’
ceremonies between June and November for anyone nationwide, there would be thousands of
potential lawsuits headed to federal court to sunder nationwide the standards of what is considered
marriage and the family. Even California would have its own amendment declared invalid.
After destroying the secular definition of marriage in society those who push the homosexual agenda
will not be satisfied. They will go after the religious meaning. Already there are examples of this
both in Canada and in the US. There are investigations under way in Canada by their ’Human
Rights” commissions on Catholic priests who preach that homosexuality is a sin (01/12/05). In New
Mexico the American version of these thought police fined a Christian photographer for refusing to
photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. Christianity is well on its way to being labeled
‘homophobic’. Therefore Christianity can be suppressed. This is the value of a malleable word to
those who wield it for their cause to crush unmalleable concepts.
However, even facing the potential legal assault on marriage nationwide both secular and religious,
the meaning of marriage wouldn't change. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is ordained
by God that this should be so (That's the religious part. It doesn't have any malleability built in). It is
practiced as such throughout recorded history. It is the natural and instinctive structure of humanity.
This is the power of the unmalleable word and unmalleable concept. It will survive the challenge of
the social assault by those with a disorder or who are immoral.
In the end saying something doesn't make it so. Like the dog that can’t climb a tree because it is
called a cat, Ellen and Portia aren't going to be married. For that word and status is reserved for a
man and a woman. It is not something that can be changed by judicial fiat. Instead, feel sorry for
Ellen and Portia’s disorder and wish them well and hope they can get help. Just as you hope for all
others who engage in homosexual activity to get help. Just as California needs help. Just like the rest
of the nation could soon use help to remember the difference between unmalleable fact and malleable
fiction.