Fairy Dreams In New Jersey

Since the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that the New Jersey state constitution holds a "right" for gays and lesbians to marry, liberals have been wetting their pants with excitement, projecting futuristic scenerios of "Can you believe a time existed when gays couldn't marry?" with hypothetical children, as in this piece. And of course, we have the age-old comparison of the so-called gay "rights" movement to the civil rights movement of the 60's.

First of all, if one can find a right to marry in any legal constitution, state or otherwise, then people have the right to enter into any contract without qualification. And since marriage is a right, then all legal age of consent laws are invalid. And all laws against incest and bigamy are also unconstitutional.

In regards to the state, marriage law is nothing more than contract law. Under this archaic patriarchical concept, when a man takes a wife, he is obligated morally to provide for her. This was written into law for the protection of women and children, so that if a man decided to break his marriage contract with his wife, she could recover for herself and her children. It does not take a legal scholar to figure this one out. Furthermore, if you have ever witnessed an ugly divorce, you will see just which direction the presumption of innocence leans toward.

And so, again we must again re-state that marriage is not a civil right, but a matter of contract law. Under state laws, one must obtain a license for marriage. At last account, any obtaining of licenses from the state connote priviledge that can be revoked by the state if certain conditions and qualifications are not met. Other examples of licenses are business licenses, driver's licenses, building permits, etc. The above activities are rights denoted nowhere in any constitution. Contract law, plain and simple.

But if I were black, I believe I would get tired of everyone comparing their plight to the plight of black people in the years leading up to the 1960's. Blacks were denied their civil rights for years. Blacks could not even congregate for church in the south for years without white supervision. One custom that still exists in some black churches today has its roots in pre-civil rights struggles, as black preachers were required to hold on to a chair set in the middle of the room while preaching. Blacks were not treated as competent people, but were believed to be inferior, needing white supervision and help in all things. In the early census statistics, blacks were treated only as 3/5 of a person if they were held as slaves. Blacks were not allowed to meet the gaze of their white betters, or risk physical harm.

While not all whites abused blacks, and not all blacks were abused, the general stigmas of the days prior to the Civil Rights movement held that blacks were not fully equal people to whites. A fairer comparison to the struggles of the Civil Rights movement may be drawn from Jews or Irish immigrants in at the turn of the century.

But gays? First of all, gays have been assembling for years now without reprisal from the government, unlike blacks of the civil rights era who were hosed. We've had to put up with the incessant carping about being second class citizens, when in fact we are just tired of their whining about their self-inflicted demotion. Blacks were in fact treated as inferior to whites. Gays can obtain all the benefits of marriage without being married. Blacks could obtain no benefits for themselves at all unless whites allowed it at the time. Gays have always had equal protection under the law. Blacks had to have two amendments passed before such rights were even recognized.

The only reason why gay people want marriage is to legitimize their lifestyle, and to force society to accept as a normal condition one that has been regarded as deviant by most every society of history. Those societies that embraced deviance such as this no longer exist.