I’d like to clearly state for the record that I am not by any means a lawyer in a classically trained, traditional sense. In the same right, I’ve never attended seminary or achieved any notable acclaim or accreditation as a cultural historian. However, after re-reading Plessy vs Ferguson and its subsequent reversal in Brown vs Board of Education, I find it very hard to understand the constitutional viability of Proposition 8 or any other measure with the same aim of restricting the ability for homosexuals to enjoy and engage in any and all federal or state institutions which non-homosexuals, based solely on the supposed merit of their not being homosexual, are afforded the opportunity to enjoy.

The first issue concerning the institution of marriage, and the legitimacy of subsequent modal manifestation, is whether it truly exists at all. By that, I mean to consider its existence outside of the mind, in a concrete absolute sense. If the institution of marriage does in fact exist, then in the same absolute sense that some believe God to exist, it should be acceptable that, like all other things absolute, no matter time or place, in this universe, dimension, or any other it will be as discernible then and there as it is here and now. If that is indeed the case, then the institution of marriage must have certain innate characteristics in order to be discernible in the event that all recollection of it ceases to exist. Subsequently, in order to be discernible to those unfamiliar with current human thought, the only truly innate defining characteristics of marriage must be devoid of those which cease to exist upon decomposition of the mind. All characteristics ascribed to marriage which exist only so long as the mind in which they inhabit exists are merely modalities of a particular manifestation and have no bearing as to what the absolute definition of marriage is or is not.

According to Leibnez’s Law, any and all manifestations of marriage, in order to be legitimate forms of marriage, must all posses the same predicates, or for our discussion, characteristics. The fact that the act of marriage, getting married, and being married, and the privileges there afforded, has been widely acknowledged and accepted as a right universal to all citizens of the United States regardless of religious affiliation, race, or creed, is a paramount tenet to the singularity and absolutism of the institution. In a broader sense, specific race, creed, and religious affiliation are not innate characteristics of the definition of marriage; any person, regardless of the aforementioned, can manifest a true instance of marriage. Logically, if it were not so, many instances, or rather types of things resembling marriage, would already exist, and although it wouldn’t negate the existence of a singular institution of ‘absolute’ marriage, it would certainly make it harder to reasonably argue that any manifestation of marriage truly and completely resembled absolute marriage any more than any other. Although different in circumstance, celebration, and execution, Jews, Christians, Blacks, Whites, Theists and Atheists must be able to engage the same way since otherwise the institution of marriage ceases to exist ‘absolutely’ when differences based on things like race, creed, or religious affiliation, which exist only within the mind, are applied.

With these things in mind, one can easily define the absolute existence of marriage, which acts as a template for all manifestations, as containing any and all characteristics which are common to all marriages and exist outside of the human mind. This definition works because it allows the existence of marriage to be absolute, singular, and rediscernable. In order to do so, one need only look to the characteristics that make up all marriages and decide whether each individual characteristic can be rediscernable in the event that the human mind ceases to exist. While it is correct to assert that all marriages involve two beings, as numbers and mathematics exist outside the human mind, it is incorrect to assert that all marriages are dependent on specific gender differences or non-differences. Proponents of Proposition 8 will argue for the inclusion of, “All marriages involve one male and one female,” into the definition, but this would be ill advised and erroneous as the difference of gender, and subsequent gender roles, ceases to exist upon decomposition of the human mind, and therefore cannot be considered litmus for marriage validity.

Without delving too far into the topic of gender, consider the simultaneous yet completely different evolution of gender across cultures throughout history. To define gender in an absolute, rediscernable sense is difficult if not impossible as no characteristic differences exist outside of the human perception of them, and furthermore many understandings of gender exist. Any person arguing the validity of absolute characteristics of gender differences that are not purely biological has no basis for their argument other than sexism as only science exists outside the human mind. This would include the notion of ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ as well as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ as absolutely male or female specific roles. While some may assert that typically the female of the species fulfills the non-biological role of ‘mom,’ any assumption of universality further is mere speculation and hogwash.

However unreasonable it has hereto been shown, some will still argue that marriage is inherently religious, and God, who also exists outside of the human mind, trumps all human understanding of the institution. However, in my opinion, the American institution of marriage, in the most traditional yet modern day sense, requires the recognition of only one entity, the state. While Christians, specifically Catholics, embrace marriage as a sacrament or pseudo-sacrament with the intent to represent the union of one man and one woman in the eyes of God outside the boundary of government jurisdiction, upon the addition, acceptance, and execution of various legal benefits attached to the institution, it becomes immediately secularized and subject to government jurisdiction.

Based upon the information presented hereto, that one, if it does in fact exist in an absolute sense, marriage cannot be defined as the union of one man and one woman, but rather only as the union of two beings, and two, marriage in The United States of America is a secular institution, in conjunction with the constitution, in consideration with previous Supreme Court decisions regarding civil rights, it should easily be seen that any attempt by government to restrict the right of homosexuals to be afforded the institution of marriage and the rights therein afforded is both unconstitutional and tyrannical.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! Make sure to follow on Twitter! Comments/love can be sent here. Thanks for reading!