Regarding DOMA And Other “Assurances.”

OK– I’ll open the floodgates–time for a ramble….

Marriage is a word used to describe a societal institution, and it means something–or at least it has, that something being a relatively permanent, committed union between a man and a woman. Yes, I know that people have historically taken their own marriages too lightly and the Hollywood left and others have treated their marriages in much the same manner as middle-school kids treat crushes; but the essential accepted definition of the term, “MARRIAGE” has nonetheless remained intact for the better part of 2000 years.

Now, however, we are being told that we, in a new ‘enlightened’ era, must arbitrarily re-define the longstanding societal institution of marriage, for better or worse, to include same sex couples, and that it should be so under the 14th Amendment, and upheld between States under the “Full Faith and Credit” clause.

Fine and dandy, I guess…BUT–

We’re also told that that’s as far as it will go– and if we (those who are against gay marriage and/or those who are on the fence) think that it is the beginning of a slippery slope ‘anything goes’ redefinition of the institution of marriage, we’re just paranoid neanderthals.. 10 or 15 years ago, we were also told that there was no need to pass a defense of marriage amendment to the Constitution, because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) protected that traditional definition.

Fine and dandy, as well, I guess;

However, up to this point, no one has been able to adequately explain how, if the SCOTUS decision tilts the “gay marriage” way, that polygamists, incestuous couples, etc., will not also want equal protection under the 14th Amendment, and sue for the right to marry, and that the term ‘marriage’ will have so many meanings so as to render what has been a veritable societal institution meaningless.

In other words, what is to prevent the slippery slope we’re being assured will not happen?

Personally, I’m of the mind that it’s a State issue, and that ALL unions should be civil unions. But should the term “Marriage” be so malleable so as to become meaningless?

Are people really thinking things through on this issue? Or are many merely living in the zeitgiest of the moment,  inconsiderate of and/or oblivious to the ramifications?

I’ve been thinking long and hard the past few days, and I can’t see any assurances that my worst nightmare regarding the institution of marriage, that it essentially becomes meaningless, will not come to fruition.

While many marriages have failed since time imemoriam, the institution of marriage on balance has unarguably been a net-positive as a building block for literally thousands of years into our civilization.

I guess all I’m saying is that we may be taking this issue a bit too cavalierly; jumping in the clouded pool without regard as to its depth and/or its potential consequences.

I await to be educated to the contrary.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan – Mark Steyn nails it:

…It came up at dinner Down Under this time last year, and the prominent Aussie politician on my right said matter-of-factly, “It’s not about expanding marriage, it’s about destroying marriage.” That would be the most obvious explanation as to why the same societal groups who assured us in the Seventies that marriage was either (a) a “meaningless piece of paper” or (b) institutionalized rape are now insisting it’s a universal human right…

The thing about liberals is that, at bottom, they are just downright nasty – doesn’t matter what the issue is, they will always take the worst possible position and if it contradicts their previous position its no matter…as long as hatred the destruction of our civilization proceed, they’re just pleased as punch.