Another Needless Prohibition
Sam Aurelius Milam III
While
I was in high school, our new band director, an available young fellow
fresh out of college, became romantically involved with a female student.
As I recall, nobody had much to say about it. On the band bus, on
the way back to school after football games, he sat in the front seat,
on the right, which was the customary place for a band director to sit.
She sat beside him, with his arm around her for the whole trip. I
don't remember anybody criticizing them. I'm not sure, but I think
they got married after she graduated. To the best of my recollection,
everybody seemed to accept it as normal.
If
such a thing were to happen today, everyone would be immediately scandalized.
The media would have a field day. The "family court" would grab the
girl, remove her from her parents and from school, and slap her in a "safe
location". The unfortunate band director would be fired and probably
convicted of a "sex crime". He might spend time in prison, would
never be a band director again, and would be required to register as a
"sex offender" for the rest of his life.
What's
wrong with everybody? Can't two young people get together and fall
in love without having to satisfy a bunch of arbitrary, hypocritical, irrelevant
preconditions? So what if she was a student? It's nobody's
business but theirs. Yet, today, they'd be ruined for life.
Today's lunatic reformers can't even solve their own problems, yet they
presume the wisdom and display the arrogance and hypocrisy to impose their
own petty, narrow-minded opinions upon everybody else, using government
as their weapon of choice. I think they should rescind the legislation,
release the imprisoned victims, and mind their own business.
Ignorance in Action
Sam Aurelius Milam III
As
homosexual couples continue their campaign to achieve the "right" to "marriage",
they display a disappointing ignorance. The fact is that they already
had the right to marriage. What they're trying to achieve in its
place is permission to engage in a regulated privilege authorized by the
state, which is also called "marriage".
The
incentives to pursue such an absurd goal are obvious, and certainly not
accidental. Once people have been granted the authorized privilege
of "marriage" they are given access to many secondary privileges.
These secondary privileges include commercial, legal and medical benefits,
as well as permission to produce children that will be recognized by the
state as "legitimate". I suppose that last one is irrelevant to homosexuals.
Nevertheless, all of those privileges are controlled by the state and denied
to people who lack the enabling "marriage" privilege. People's acquired
(or imagined) dependence on those various privileges gives the state a
vast ability to use the privileges as a means to control the people.
It's
a dismal situation that could be remedied, if people would only do it.
Homosexual couples should stop demanding that they be allowed to participate
in state sanctioned "marriages". Heterosexual couples should exercise
the right that homosexual couples already had, and are trying to squander
— an actual right to marriage, beyond the purview of the state, and free
from restriction, regulation, and control by the state. Heterosexual
couples don't need to ask anybody. All they need to do is forego
the license and have a ceremony. If they lose a few privileges in
the deal, then I think it's worth it. The acquisition of a privilege,
however great, is never worth the loss of a right, however small, at least
not in the long run.
| Frontiersman@ida.net | Frontiersman,
479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see The Pharos Connection at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/ |
June 2000
Page 1
|
