“ …has wreaked havoc on marriage, women, children and men. It is time to redress the disorder it has wrought and that must start with getting the principles and ideals for a new “masculinism” right.”
“…speaks the language of liberation, self-fulfillment, options, and the removal of barriers, these phrases invariably mean their opposites and disguise an agenda at variance with the ideals of a free society.”
“… is doomed to failure because it is based on an attempt to repeal and restructure human nature.”
Are these recent trending quotes on the validity of same-sex marriage? Don’t recognize them? I imagine that you may have some trouble; they were made in reference to the woman’s suffrage movement. Just seems a bit silly how the fight against a woman’s right to vote echos so loudly in relation to the fight against same-sex couples and their “right to” marriage. In fact, I wish to strike down the phrase “right-to” at this moment as it further pushes the entire argument to ridiculousness. Every human, at all corners of the Earth, should have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness no matter their sexual orientation, race or religion.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams found those rights to be so sacrosanct that they deemed them unalienable within the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This was mirrored through the pen of James Madison within the preamble to the constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This is the language of “We”. The language set forth by our founders, for the purpose of inclusion within this union, for the benefit of everyone. They wanted no attribution to sexual orientation or gender. No ties to religion, political party or race. A set of ideals to make us greater for the common good. Ideals continually trumped by “I”.
The freedom of speech, so often followed by the freedom of ignorance, shall always be respected. When those freedoms translate to political movements aimed at limiting the rights of a subsection of our population, you are limiting the liberties and free speech of that subsection, and therefore those actions are deemed unconstitutional. Somehow this gets overlooked whenever those with power develop an opinion of “I.” “I feel a particular way, therefore you should adhere to this.” Often the “We” is just a collection of “I” when “We” does not pertain to ideas that address everyone. We is everyone, not just every man, or every white man, or every straight white man, etc… This is Our country.
The aforementioned unalienable rights do not just exist for those that those see fit to address, they also exist for those some would not. If everyone was as passionate about the entire bodies of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, as they are about the particular sections that apply to the rights that they find important, then maybe we could begin a discussion about what We should do to move this country forward.
Whether the issue be guns, marriage, voting or citizenship We should always remember to use the language of We, holding sacred the rights we have to I, but knowledgeable enough to know and humble enough to accept, that We the people, not I the person.