It's official. The Catholic Knight is retired.  I'm hanging up the helmet and passing the torch. There will be no more articles, no more commentaries, no more calls to action. THIS BLOG IS CLOSED. I've spent a very long time thinking about this, I believe the time has come, and is a bit overdue.  I want to thank my readers for everything, but most especially for your encouragement and your willingness to go out there and fight the good fight. So, that being the case, I've spend the last several weeks looking for bloggers who are fairly active, and best represent something akin to the way I think and what I believe.  I recommend the following blogs for my readers to bookmark and check on regularly. Pick one as your favourite, or pick them all. They are all great..... In His Majesty's Service, THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT

Friday, September 30, 2005

A Marriage for Three!?!

Polygamy Now Legal in the Netherlands {read more}

Fasten your seat belts everyone, because this is where legalized "gay marriage" is going to take us. The general argument proposed by people in favor of "gay marriage" is that anyone should have the right to marry. Okay. So now the question is; if anyone can marry, than why not everyone? Well, that's okay for the dutch. Today, a dutch man (strangely resembling 'Dr. Evil' from the 'Austin Powers' movies), legally married two women. Since the Dutch still have a law against polygamy, the 'marriage' was legally arranged under the auspices of a "civil union." But the groom wore a tux and the brides wore white gowns all the same. The 'civil union' will have all the legal rights and privileges of a real marriage, minus the name of course. So it's a marriage, without actually calling it a "marriage." (wink.. wink..) I suppose next on the list is marriage between a man and his sister. Why not? If anyone can marry, why not everyone!?!

This is the problem with the 'civil rights' argument when it comes to gay marriage. Proponents of "gay marriage" argue that the institution is better honored when it's open to all 'loving couples.' But in reality, "gay marriage" along with incestuous-marriage and polygamy actually do more to make a mockery of marriage than honor it. If anything, it destroys the institution entirely by making it meaningless.

In all of this, the real question is missed entirely. What is the purpose of legal civil marriages? I mean, why does the State recognize them at all? Isn't marriage mainly a religious institution anyway? That is the heart of the issue that so few people want to talk about. There is a reason why governments recognize marriage, and believe it or not, it has nothing to do with love and romance. The State recognizes marriage because history has demonstrated time and time again that children grow to become productive and well-adjusted adults in a household with one man and one woman. Productive and well-adjusted adults produce a relatively healthy and stable society, which reduces government burdens of law enforcement and civil disputes. So in other words, the State wants to encourage people to do what's best for society. One way to do this is to offer legal benefits and tax perks for men and women who live together as a couple. This helps to ensure that there is a financial and legal incentive for them to stay together, thus discouraging separations and absentee parenthood. Encouraging parents to stay together, through financial and legal incentives, also creates an opportunity for parents to create more children and thus further enrich society with more productive and well-adjusted adults. In other words, in a strictly social sense, civil marriage (between one man and one woman) makes good economic and legal policy that benefits all of society in the long run.

The State most certainly has the right to regulate marriage. Such regulations help prevent incestuous couples from staying together for very long. If they can't marry, they at least have no financial or legal benefit to staying in the relationship for any extended period of time. The same could be said of gay couples, and other "unproductive" living arrangements. Likewise, to extend the benefits of marriage to any and all people, without discrimination, creates an atmosphere where marriage has no real legal or financial benefit at all. Thus, marriage becomes a joke with no real incentives anyway. Personally, I suspect that's what some of the proponents of "gay marriage" really want anyway. The sexual revolution of the 1960s-70s tried to push the idea of "free sex" upon society, where sex simply became a means for cheap entertainment rather than its traditional meaning of love, family and responsibility. Contrary to popular myth, the sexual revolution is not over. It just became institutionalized. In Scandinavian countries the permissive notions of the 1960s-70s have actually been written into law. Now they're trying to do it here in North America.

Beware of the doublespeak of politicians. Those who would forbid "gay marriage" and allow "gay civil-unions" are really asking for the exact same thing under a different name. Make no mistake about it, civil-unions ARE marriages! They have all the same rights and privileges. They just don't call them "marriages." (wink.. wink..)

For more info on how you can help to STOP "gay-marriage" in the USA just CLICK HERE.