Government doesn't endow people with the ability to procreate the species. The Creator takes care of that. Like all unalienable rights, those associated with the natural family exist in consequence of this endowment. A couple that cannot, by nature, procreate has no claim to those rights. Nor can government grant them a semblance of it without impairing the claims of one or both of the parents biologically implicated in the physical conception of the child. The DOMA simply makes more explicit the government's obligation to secure the Creator-endowed unalienable rights of the natural family. This obligation precludes government from fabricating other rights that impair them. In this respect, granting homosexuals the right to marry is like granting plantation owners the right to own slaves.
via Equality Matters
This statement is gibberish. Let’s outline it.
- a) Government does not equip people with the ability to reproduce.
- b) The “Creator” does.
- Like all unalienable rights (rights that cannot be transferred); the existence of the “natural” or “traditional” family is granted by this Creator.
- A couple that cannot reproduce has no claim to the rights of a family.
- The government cannot grant an “unnatural” family rights or partial rights.
- Any granting of these rights or partial rights to an “unnatural” family by a government impairs the rights of “natural” parents. (I think? Is it just me or is this really convoluted?)
- The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines the government’s obligation to enforce the Creator’s granted rights to the natural family.
- This obligation precludes government from fabricating similar rights to the “unnatural family; since that would impair the rights of the “natural family.
- “In this respect, granting homosexuals the right to marry is like granting plantation owners the right to own slaves.” (I couldn’t interpret or clarify this statement. It’s too batshit crazy).
- a) no, the government has no right to interfere with human reproduction (savvy readers may also catch the other implications of this statement).
- b) unsupported claim.
- see 1b.
- Incorrect. Heterosexual couples that cannot reproduce “naturally” can seek medical assistance or adopt. This statement would seem to imply that that is also wrong. What of elderly couples that wish to marry? There is a very low likelihood of reproduction in that marriage.
- I thought the government doesn’t grant reproductive rights. How does it have the right to take them away?
- How does it impair anyone’s rights? I hear this argument so often and it has never been made explicit. I demand an actual explanation of how that would impair anyone’s rights!
- The government’s obligation to secure god’s plan. Nope. That doesn’t violate the First Amendment of the Constitution at all. Also, so much for the government staying out of people’s lives.
- The government is not fabricating rights. Human rights are not fabricated. It is staying out of individuals private lives.
- A complete non-sequitur. A crazy, crazy non-sequitur.
Thank you, Alan Keyes, for illustrating the theocratic nature of yourself and your fellow DOMA advocates.