Ordinance boldly discriminates

print
A city hall rally in Chattanooga in August 2013 demands special treatment for homosexuals.

A city hall rally in Chattanooga in August 2013 demands special treatment for homosexuals.

By David Tulis

The ordinance on the ballot Thursday is being sold as providing fairness, justice, equal opportunity, “equal pay for equal work” and so on.

Despite the mild words and the claims to being reasonable, the domestic partnership benefits plan on the Aug. 7 ballot for city voters is highly discriminatory. It debases marriage, making of it nothing more than a convenient and moralistic fiction lacking any rational basis. In the same backhand motion, it elevates homosexual alliances and guy-gal shackups to make these equal to the honorable estate. It undercounts the gold coin, and overcounts the slugs.

Homosexual acts and the compulsive lifestyle they encourage flow from a worldview that is strictly short-term, self-centered and vain.

In contrast, marriage requires a long-term view essential for intergenerational prosperity  and what we like to call economic development. Domestic unions are about absolute sexual license, debt and consumption. Gay theory dodges human fertility and children and focuses on the dole. The city plan envisions $168,000 in outlays from taxpayers the first year. But costs would soar as the system is gamed.

Since Adam’s day, men and women in every culture have married, had children and passed estates to grandchildren and those beyond. Industry, technology, innovation and  genius require a long-term perspective. The city ordinance sides with the nationwide bid to spoil marriage, to make it a pointless custom whose meaning has been scraped out from the inside, like the last baby limb at the end of an abortion.

If moral poverty weren’t enough, the ordinance is unconstitutional and a legal nullity. In Tennessee jurisprudence, a city’s authority is obtained by charter. As creatures of the legislature, it is not free to go beyond these limits. The ordinance is an underbelly stab at Tennesseans’ constitutional marriage amendment, gutting not just the letter of the law, but the General Assembly’s intent.

Ordinance rules say each member in a couple sign an affidavit. What do they affirm? A purely private arrangement. It must be intimate and a year old. For its launch — the couple’s initial sex act in cohabitation — there is no eyewitness, no event Bill Knowles, county clerk, can record. The facts of gay partnership are wispy, unproveable.

Marriage, not based on emotion, instead is a public event, recorded by the state, witnessed by the world, an enforceable promise made before God and man, until death do its members part. Marriage is based on the objective reality of the bodily distinction between man and woman. Marriage delights in physiological diversity and complementarity. LGBTQ theory, that sourpuss, deconstructs marriage, imports an immateriality, a subjectivism, a purely private passion dressed in public garb, an imposter who receives blank checks made out to him.

Across the U.S., courts are ignoring the rational basis for marriage and howling for its demise. A man with a helper establishes the basis for the free market and prosperity. Without his wedded union replicated across every farm, borough and town, the state itself cannot survive, absent the capital base upon which to impose its tax and which is a moral foundation of the state’s legitimacy.

— David Tulis is editor of Nooganomics.com, which airs 1 to 3 p.m. weekdays at Hot News Talk Radio 910 1190 and 1240 AM.

One Response

  1. JezMyOpinion August 7, 2014 Reply

Leave a Reply