Same-sex Marriage and Eric Holder’s Manzonian Mistake

6823811418_ba65db41fc_zAttorney General Eric Holder announced on Saturday, during a rather pricey NYC Gala Dinner (an entrance ticket: 450 $) held at the exclusive Walford Astoria (Park Avenue), that from now on, same-sex marriages will be equated to opposite-sex marriages by the U.S. government.

“In every courthouse, in every proceeding, and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States,” Holder announced, “they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages under federal law”.

Eric Holder was born in the Bronx in 1951, he is the first African-American to hold the position of Attorney General of the US, he formerly covered the position of Judge to the Columbia Superior Court and he is married, with three children. Holder served as a legal advisor to Barack Hussein Obama during the 2008 Presidential campaign. He was also the first Member of the United States cabinet to be held in contempt by the Congress. The Civil measure was approved with 258 votes in favor and 95 against. Holder later dismissed the House Action by labeling it as a “politically motivated investigation”.

In November 2013, Congressman Pete Olson (R-TX) called for the impeachment of Mr. Holder due to “high crimes and misdemeanors” allegedly committed during the completion of Holder’s functions as head of the Justice Department. Among the accusations, according to Olson, was the “Refusal to prosecute the IRS officials involved in the targeting and disclosure of tax records belonging to political donors”.

Holder is also famous for having previously represented the Swiss Bank UBS AG – which has been accused of conspiracy in Tax fraud by the US government – as a private attorney. Finally, in February 2009, Holder gave a controversial speech regarding race-related issues. In that occasion, Holder stated that “Americans simply do not talk enough with each other about race”. The statements were harshly criticized, to the point that President Obama himself had to defend Holder by admitting that “if I had been advising my attorney general, we would have used different language”.

It might well be that Holder’s early childhood, family values and counter-cultural mindset have had an influence in his professional career up until he became the US Attorney General. As a private lawyer, Mr. Holder was in fact free to defend whoever he wanted. But in his actual position he is obliged by law to serve each and every American citizen regardless of sex, faith, social status and race.

The position of US Attorney General was created in 1789, under George Washington’s Presidency, by an Act of the Judicial Court. It is important to notice, in this context, that the Federal Court System’s rudimentary framework (like it or not) has remained practically the same up until today.

The issue of same sex marriage has been largely debated in Italy, as well as all over the world. In our country, the Cassation Court’s historical sentence of March 15, 2012, is still under discussion. In this occasion, the court held that gay people have the right marry each other.

But, as noted elsewhere, same-sex marriage is hardly recognizable as an issue of civil rights.

There is a big difference between Civil Rights and marriage related issues. And namely: “Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, colour, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability; and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.”  

While the noun “marriage” means the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. Marriage is “…a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged…”

(Haviland, William A.; Prins, Harald E. L.; McBride, Bunny; Walrath, Dana [2011]. Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge, 13th ed.)

Now, there are also a couple of very good reasons according to which gay-marriage is not synonym with marriage, or wedlock or matrimony.

1)      Marriage is an institution, regulated by the State, which has the main purpose of renewing the social contract that exists between generations by perpetuating the human race. A gay couple cannot reproduce, therefore it cannot guarantee the continuation of the human race and for this reason it cannot be granted the same social status and tax benefits that are granted to heterosexual couples. The argument according to which a gay couple can adopt does not count for obvious reasons. Heterosexual couples can adopt too. The argument according to which gay-couples pay taxes does not count as well: heterosexual couples pay taxes too. And the argument according to which, with this rationale, sterile couples should not be allowed to get married goes in the same basket as well: rules in any given society are made according to the majority of people. Sterile couples represents an overwhelming minority, therefore they don’t count.

2)     By equalizing same-sex marriage to heterosexual marriage, the advocates of gay marriage are effectively erasing the concept of marriage itself. That is to say: if marriage is not about reproduction, then it must cease to exist once and for all. In other words, saying that gay-marriage is no different from opposite-sex marriage is like saying that marriage has no reason to exist whatsoever.

3)   Therefore, by annihilating the concept of marriage, advocates of gay marriage are de facto annihilating matrimony itself and in doing so they are endangering the very continuation of the human race on this planet.

4)   The fact that a biological mother is better than an adoptive parent is utterly self-evident. Consequently, by advocating for same-sex marriages, LGBT supporters are effectively jeopardizing the very psychological development of millions of kids. It’s easy to be gay with someone else’s backside. Social experiments like the one that gay marriage advocates support will have an enormous impact on the life of children, but the latter will not have any chance to advocate for themselves: they will simply be thrown in the hands of a parent “A” and a parent “B”. Advocates of gay marriage always advance superficial arguments against this evidence. They usually claim that the so-called normal families are, sometimes, very bad families. But when one has weak arguments, all he can do is supporting his weak arguments by reversing rules and exceptions. Clearly, the fact that bad families exists does not mean that every heterosexual family is a bad family. Pure non-sense. To the contrary, it means that only a vast minority of heterosexual families are bad families.

5)    Same sex  marriage will have to be imposed by law, simply because it is impossible to impose it by reasoning. Normal reasoning people are against same-sex marriage (and not against homosexuals) because that’s how it should be. By reversing normality, the advocates of gay-marriage are effectively imposing their (non)values by force. They are an extremely vocal minority with pretty strong ties in high places and in most recent years they have formed a social guild in order to protect and promote each other, regardless of their effective merits. This is particularly evident in the fields of Fine Arts, fashion, Cinema, and the Music industry (which, not surprisingly, also happen to be the fields in which superficial individuals usually find safe haven).

6)   Same-sex marriage can (and will) result in the artificial creation of more and more homosexual individuals insofar as children tend to imitate their parents in each and every aspect of life, including the sexual sphere. Gay marriage advocates will argue that this is not true, but that’s like arguing that horses don’t neigh and whales aren’t mammals or, if you wish,  that water cannot be made hot, cold or lukewarm, and that the Coliseum is not in Rome, Italy. Some left-leaning individuals argue for the sake of arguing and in this case they will probably tell you that water can be transformed into ice as well…

7)      Same-sex couples usually form unstable and fragile unions and therefore they will also make a bad family. Strenuous advocates of gay marriage will argue, at this point, that this is not true and that “they know a lot of gays who are marvelous individuals”. Too bad one can hardly justify such a weird position by quoting personal experiences. This is tantamount to say that, if you happen to know a very nice thief, all thieves must consequently be nice people after all. Unfortunately though, sound research is made by quoting sound statistics, empirical evidence and proofs. The latter suggest that the marriage/divorce ratio is higher in gay couples as opposed to normal. Personal experience, therefore, does not count.

8)  The state will have to enforce a new type of counter culture in order to promote homosexuality. But the state is not supposed to promote anything, that’s not its role. Schools will have to enforce and educate children to promote homosexuality, as if homosexuality is a good thing in itself. But schools are not supposed to educate, they are supposed to teach. As noted before, normal marriage is supported by the state because of very linear reasoning that has to do with tax benefits and with the special social status that normal families are granted, due to the fact that, by procreating, they guarantee returns for the state itself. But same sex marriage won’t guarantee anything to the state, only more divorces and more gay people. Tireless advocates of the same sax marriage will argue at this point that gays “have something more” than regular people. But that, ironically, is pure social discrimination. Homosexual individuals have nothing more and nothing less than normal individuals, they are just “different”, but not “better”. To claim that a homosexual couple has something more than a normal couple is synonymous with intolerance: it’s reversed discrimination. Which is as bad as discrimination.

9)    Enforcing same-sex marriage will also, almost inevitably – one could say – bring forth also the argument for polygamy, incest and under age marriage. According to an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in fact, Mr. Winston Blackmore – the frontrunner of a Canadian polygamist organization – has married a number of underage girls since 1976. Moreover, as Anthony McCarthy correctly points out in this speech, the revisionist argument for gay marriage is all about love. Then, according to this rationale, why is it that brothers and sisters cannot be united into marriage? Of course we know why, but logical reasoning dictates that, once you frame same-sex marriage according to the discrimination of a minority, then what is the reason for not taking into account also the rights of siblings that love each other and allow them to get married?

10)   By denying children the presence of biological parents, same-sex marriage ultimately erases the very concept of motherhood/fatherhood, too. This is a no brainer: if non-biological parents will be rendered equal to biological parents under state law, the very concept of parenthood will obviously disappear from modern civil society.

These are but a few arguments against gay-marriage. But as I previously wrote, there are many more arguments according to which same-sex marriage does not make sense at all. They have to do with sociological issues, psychological issues, political issues and even religious ones. But supporters of same sex marriages tend portrait the issue as an issue of “intelligent people Vs. stupid people”. And as I previously wrote, that cannot be the case. Intelligence has clearly nothing to do with gay people’s rights. In other terms, if you don’t support same sex marriage, for whatever reason, that does not automatically transform you into a stupid person. To the contrary, the fact that the US Department of Justice will interfere with the definition of marriage will almost certainly constitute a huge step back in terms of moral thought for American society at large. From now on, people will in fact be entitled to argue in favor of trans-human marriage too. With the same rationale utilized for the same sex marriage, one could also argue that it should be possible to marry animals, cars and even trees, or anything else that can be made object of love. Moreover, if love becomes the sole reason for getting married, then one should not prohibit thirteen-year-old teens to get married to each other and even procreate or have children. Now, nobody is against teens, but any reasonable person should be against teen husbands and wives. The fact that people are, in fact, against teen marriage does not mean that they are against teens, it only means that this category of individuals should not be entitled to marry for obvious reasons.

The Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides used to make a clear distinction between human and divine laws. In his book, entitled “Guide of the Perplexed”, Maimonides defined the first kind of laws as laws that have to do with the welfare of the body. The second kind of laws, or nomos, were instead of divine nature and had to do with the welfare of the soul. Nowadays this distinction is clearly gone. But I find it rather difficult to think that Maimonides was less intelligent than Eric Holder, or that his thought was less profound.

What Mr. Holder is doing is mistaking modernity of thought for quality of thought. His mistake, much like the mistakes of the Obama’s administration at large, will anyway fall onto our children’s shoulders. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Proverbs, 16:25, NKJV Bible). Or,  Like Alessandro Manzoni put it: “…Was this true glory? — The high doom must be pronounced by times to come…”

Published by

Andrea Loquenzi Holzer

The truth will set you free

Leave a Reply at your risk, my dear Inferior...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s