Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage

I recently became aware of, and their Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. Please take a moment to read it. I have also reproduced it below.

In general, I support this effort. However, I do notice that the Pledge above is not a Christian defense, which would merely consist of quotes from the Bible and from respected Christian theologians and other Christian figures. A purely Biblical theological defense should be enough for any Christian. Instead of being a Christian defense, it consists of appeals to Natural Law and legalism with vague references to ‘faith’. There is no scientific basis to Natural Law, it is in itself a pseudo-scientific rationalization of an intuitive position. In short appeals to Natural Law are appeals to Faith. If is not going to provide a proper Christian defense and stand on Faith, then they are attempting to be logical and scientific. I am hoping that I may assist them in presenting a truly logical and scientific argument.

The intent of Propertarianism is to provide conservatives with a scientific language with which to defend their positions. Below is my short Propertarian version of the Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. It is based in the science of biology.

A Propertarian Pledge to Defend Marriage

We, the European peoples, are living creatures, and like all living creatures we struggle for Life. The struggle for Life requires that living beings pass genes forward through time via the process of sexual reproduction. Being members of a sexually dimorphic species, sexual reproduction among Homo Sapiens is a matter of cooperation between the sexes, who have competing sexual reproduction strategies. The human female’s reproductive strategy is to acquire the genes of the fittest males she can find, and then to offload the cost of child care onto her community or other less fit specimens who are willing to trade resources for access to sex. The human male’s reproductive strategy is to spread his genes to as many females as he can and provide as little resources to the resulting child care as possible. The above is an r-selected reproductive strategy of low investment parenting, intended to produce quantity and not quality of offspring, which can be observed in practice today among some orders of Homo Sapiens in more resource rich environments. The typical scenario is that of small subset of the fittest males (Alpha males, fighting specimens) impregnating many females and offering little to no child-care resources, while many Beta and lower males are completely denied access to reproduction. The females attempt to offload child-rearing costs onto their communities, and will tend to reproduce with multiple Alphas as long as resources are available.

Europeans developed a compromise between the competing reproductive strategies of the male and female and ensconced the rules and logic of this compromise in an institution called Marriage. In this compromise, only males who willingly bear the cost of raising their own children are allowed access to reproduction. Females are barred from shopping for better genes and may only reproduce with their marriage partner. This arrangement prevents monopolization of the females by the small Alpha male subset and allows access to reproduction to males not based on fighting ability, but on ability to engage in economic activity to produce resources for child-rearing. One consequence of this is a large and growing pool of males directed at economic production in order to gain access to sexual reproduction. Another consequence is that those males who are unable or unwilling to engage in economic production are excluded from sexual reproduction. This process of excluding those unable to plan and work for the future, while including those who can negotiate this future-orientation, results in what is known as a eugenic effect. This eugenic effect was observed throughout Europe in the Middle Ages as strict rules of Marriage were enforced by the Catholic church, and resulted in increasing average intelligence and work ethic in the European population, and a directly related increase in technological advancement and rising standards of living, reduction of human suffering, and expressions of human excellence in the arts. This eugenic process resulted in the Renaissance and the eventual global dominance of European technology and culture, converting Europeans from among the poorest on the planet to the richest.

Among Europeans, Marriage is an institution consisting of the universal requirement of lifelong pairing for access to sex and sexual reproduction (and the concomitant barring of all sexual union outside of matrimony), limiting the resulting children of those unions to a number which may be provided for by the couple alone without parasitism on the surrounding community, and to be disrupted only in the most dire of circumstances (limited divorce to as small a fraction as possible). Marriage itself is an institution controlling sexual reproduction, and any union which cannot produce fruit is therefore not Marriage. Marriage as an institution contains all rules affecting union and divorce, including all incentives and disincentives to maintain or disrupt a union.

The compromise between the sexes known as Marriage and pioneered to a universal standard by Europeans is a sociological technological innovation which has observably resulted in comparative competitive advantage for European populations. European civilization itself is a direct result of the fundamental institutional building block labeled Marriage. Defense of the institution of Marriage is a defense of European civilization itself, and is a defense of the most advantageous societal organization and reproductive strategy yet developed on the globe. Any attack on the institution of Marriage is an attack on European civilization and European peoples, their way of life and standard of living. Such attacks are no less than a matter of life and death and should be repelled by any means necessary. We, the European people, stand for Marriage and for our civilization, and we pledge to defend European civilization and the future of European civilization through our defense of the institution of Marriage. Woe to all who stand against us.

The Pledge

We stand together in defense of marriage and the family and society founded upon them. While we come from a variety of communities and hold differing faith perspectives, we are united in our common affirmation of marriage.

On the matter of marriage, we stand in solidarity. We affirm that marriage and family have been inscribed by the Divine Architect into the order of Creation. Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family. Family is the first vital cell of society, the first government, and the first mediating institution of our social order. The future of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family.

Marriage as existing solely between one man and one woman precedes civil government. Though affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by faith, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based on religion or revelation alone, but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart and discernible through the exercise of reason. It is part of the natural created order. The Natural Law is what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., referred to as a higher law or a just law in his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Marriage is the preeminent and the most fundamental of all human social institutions. Civil institutions do not create marriage nor can they manufacture a right to marry for those who are incapable of marriage. Society begins with marriage and the family.

We pledge to stand together to defend  marriage for what it is, a bond between one man and one woman, intended for life, and open to the gift of children.

The institutions of civil government should defend marriage and not seek to undermine it. Government has long regulated marriage for the true common good. Examples, such as the age of consent, demonstrate such a proper regulation to ensure the free and voluntary basis of the marriage bond. Redefining the very institution of marriage is improper and outside the authority of the State. No civil institution, including the United States Supreme Court or any court, has authority to redefine marriage.

As citizens united together, we will not stand by while the destruction of the institution of marriage unfolds in this nation we love. The effort to redefine marriage threatens the essential foundation of the family.

Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same government will then enforce such an action with the police power of the State. This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights. The precedent established will leave no room for any limitation on what can constitute such a redefined notion of marriage or human sexuality. We cannot and will not allow this to occur on our watch. Religious freedom is the first freedom in the American experiment for good reason.

Conferring a moral and legal equivalency to any relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman, by legislative or judicial fiat, sends the message that children do not need a mother and a father. As a policy matter, such unions convey the message that moms and dads are completely irrelevant to the well-being of children. Such a policy statement is unconscionable and destructive. Authorizing the legal equivalency of marriage to same-sex couples undermines the fundamental rights of children and threatens their security, stability, and future.

Neither the United States Supreme Court nor any court has authority to redefine marriage and thereby weaken both the family and society. Unlike the Legislative Branch that has the power of the purse and the Executive Branch which has the figurative power of the sword, the Judicial Branch has neither. It must depend upon the Executive Branch for the enforcement of its decisions.

As the Supreme Court acknowledged in the 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, its power rests solely upon the legitimacy of its decisions in the eyes of the people. If the decisions of the Court are not based on the Constitution and reason, and especially if they are contrary to the natural created order, then the people will lose confidence in the Court as an objective arbiter of the law. If the people lose respect for the Court, the Court’s authority will be diminished.

The Supreme Court was wrong when it denied Dred Scott his rights and said, “blacks are inferior human beings.” And the Court was wrong when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in Buck v. Bell, “three generations of imbeciles are enough,” thus upholding Virginia’s eugenics law that permitted forced sterilization. Shamefully, that decision was cited during the Nuremburg trials to support the Nazi eugenic holocaust.

In these earlier cases, the definition of “human” was at issue. Now the definition of “marriage” is at issue. The Constitution does not grant a right to redefine marriage — which is nonsensical since marriage intrinsically involves a man and a woman. Nor does the Constitution prohibit states from affirming the natural created order of male and female joined together in marriage.

We will view any decision by the Supreme Court or any court the same way history views the Dred Scott and Buck v. Bell decisions. Our highest respect for the rule of law requires that we not respect an unjust law that directly conflicts with higher law. A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order. As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law. We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross this line.

We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.


One thought on “Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage

  1. Pingback: This Week in Reaction Aesthetics (2015/05/08) | The Reactivity Place

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s