The Innate Nature of People and Marriage

I read again a great article today by the late Fred Hutchison on gay marriage and the innate nature of man. The part that really stood out to me is that even if the Govt tries to redefine marriage as being inclusive of same-sex couples, it is in name only and that the innate nature of marriage cannot be changed by man. It's from 2004, but well worth reading if you haven't seen it before.

Jay Budziszewski, professor of government and philosophy at the University of Texas-Austin, pointed out that the underlying reality of a thing is independent of its name. The "underlying reality" means the "innate nature." Changing a name cannot change the underlying nature of the thing designated. Those who suppose they are changing reality by changing a name are indulging in magical thinking.

When gays rhapsodize about the wonders of gay unions, their rhetoric is filled with magical and wishful thinking. "Give us the name of marriage, and we shall enjoy the blessings of marriage." Sorry. Blessings come from bringing innate nature to its fulfillment. Blessings do not come from changing the name of a relationship to make it politically correct. Indeed, the agenda to impose politically correct words is filled with the illusions of magical thinking.

The only people who can accept magical thinking are those who do not believe that the things they see have an innate nature. The proponents of gay marriage who see no contradiction between "gay" and "marriage" do not believe that either man, woman, or marriage have innate natures. It is magical thinking to suppose that something can come into being just because we name it, or say it exists, or want it to exist, think it exists, or will it to exist.

Gays magically think they have the "right" to legal recognition of their unions as marriages by virtue of their desire, will, sincerity, commitment, and love. This claim presupposes that marriage is an artifact of desire, sincerity, commitment, and love. These subjective qualities can make a relationship better, but cannot create the objective underlying nature of that relationship. If I feel good about my imagined oneness with a fire hydrant, that does not mean I have created a marriage.

When a director on a movie set looks at the false front of a building, he can decide what kind of building he wants it to be and make it so by hanging a different sign on it. However, if one thinks he can look at a real building and claim he can decide for himself what kind of building it is without reference to its design, he is either a liar, a madman, or a liberal who has been seduced by magical thinking.

If one does not believe in an existence anchored in an innate nature, he is floating in a chaotic flux in which one can say, "Gay marriage is a marriage if we give it the name of marriage." In the mad hatter world of gay advocacy, gays can assert, "We have the 'right' to 'gay marriage' because we want it and demand it and feel good about our gay liaisons."

MORE