This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.
Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law.
Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core.
The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme Court will put its official stamp of approval on “same-sex marriage.” Ultimately, these nine justices will decide either to recklessly deconstruct, radically redefine and render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage – or leave it alone.
They’d better leave it alone.
Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence. They want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality,” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.
In a recent column headlined, “The Revolt of Intelligence Against ‘Marriage Equality,” worldview expert Rick Pearcey addressed one prominent “gay” activist’s admission that the destruction of natural marriage signifies the left’s ultimate cultural coup de grâce.
“Masha Gessen, a lesbian and a journalist, spoke frankly about this at a conference in Sydney, Australia,” he wrote. “‘It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry,’ she said. ‘But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … ‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”
Still, if counterfeit “same-sex marriage” becomes the law of the land, then much will follow before marriage extinction inevitably occurs.
One of liberals’ favorite Alinskyite defense mechanisms is to ridicule the opposition if confronted with some irrefutable argument against some hallowed left-wing delusion. Such is the tactic employed whenever a thinking person walks into the room and points this out: Once the government pretends that some vague combination of “love” and “consent” are all that a “marriage” requires, then other “arbitrary” and “discriminatory” parameters beyond a binary male-female prerequisite must also go poof.
That is to say, if the Court magically divines some constitutional right to “same-sex marriage,” then full “marriage equality” necessarily demands that polygamous, incestuous and any other equally aberrant nuptial cocktail be likewise permitted.
It’s a “no-brainer,” right?
To that end, I’m very concerned with the Supreme Court’s recent history of radically redefining that which cannot be redefined. Though examples abound, I’m thinking specifically, as concerns the topic at hand, of the Court’s 2003 holding in Lawrence v. Texas.
In Lawrence, the liberal majority, for the first time in history, radically redefined male-on-male sodomy – hitherto classified “a crime against nature” – as a “constitutional right.”
In his characteristically brilliant dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia voiced my concerns better than I can: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices,” he wrote. “Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”
So, if the high court removes one natural marriage parameter for one special-interest group, then “equal protection under the law” requires that it remove all natural marriage parameters for all special-interest groups.
Liberty Counsel made these very points in a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships,” noted the brief. “In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well.”
Another brief filed by 18 state attorneys general voiced similar concerns: “Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage,” they wrote.
The brief further observed the self-evident “no-brainer” that legitimate marriage is “optimal for children and society at large.”
It’s all very simple. If anything is marriage, then everything is marriage. And if everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage at all. “‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”
I sincerely hope that the honorable and learned men and women who sit on the highest bench in the land recognize that all of these San Francisco-style social-engineering games are a deceptive means to a destructive end. And it’s not the emotionalist end they’ve dolled-up and dished out. The left’s fierce push for “gay marriage” has nothing to do with “marriage equality” and everything to do with “marriage extinction.”
Or, as Ms. Gessen candidly put it: “[I]t’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”
I just pray that at least five justices still think it should.
I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore. For eighteen years, I’ve been playing singles tennis. But, recently, I decided to switch to doubles in an effort to attenuate some back and knee pain I’ve been experiencing on the hard courts. So my friend Gary Faulkner and I decided to sign up to play doubles for the local tennis club. Gary, being somewhat effeminate, decided we should sign up for mixed doubles. Although technically a male, Gary likes to occasionally play the role of a female.
Unfortunately, the Wilmington Tennis Foundation (WTF) rejected our request to play mixed doubles. They insisted that the definition of mixed doubles requires a man and a woman. They further insisted that the terms “man” and “woman” are determined objectively. In other words, it isn’t enough that someone plays the role of a woman. She actually has to be a woman to qualify as a woman. In the wake of the WTF reaction, Gary plans to file a complaint with the Obama Department of Justice.
For those who are not Swift enough to detect satire, Gary Faulkner is not really my friend. To the contrary, he is a gay rights activist who is deeply distraught over North Carolina’s recent passage of Amendment One limiting the definition of mixed doubles – oops!, I mean marriage – to unions involving one man and one woman.
Gary Faulkner’s strong emotional reaction to the vote is perplexing for two reasons: 1) He insisted that Amendment One was “unnecessary” prior to its passage, and 2) He was already married before the amendment came up for a vote. Both of these points are important and deserve separate treatment below.
First, anyone following the Amendment One controversy in North Carolina knows that it was necessary to pass in order to keep judicial activists from redefining marriage by judicial fiat. Gay rights activists like Gary Faulkner know that blocking the judiciary with a constitutional amendment was the only way to preserve the institution of marriage from Marxist social engineers who want government, not family, to be the foundation of society. Were the amendment unnecessary, Faulkner would not be so emotionally distraught in the wake of its passage. In fact, Gary Faulkner hasn’t been this upset since Victor Willis of the Village People married a woman.
Second, heterosexual gay rights activists like Gary Faulkner do not lead the march for same-sex marriage out of a love for gay people. Most do it out of a hatred of Christians. Faulkner, who has a well-documented history of making hate-filled and defamatory statements about Christians, has a political motive for supporting same-sex marriage. He wants marriage re-defined. Then he wants to see churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies stripped of their tax-exempt status. Finally, he wants to see churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies shut down in the name of “equality” and “tolerance.” The result would be a nation in which the only Christian churches remaining would be those that have abandoned basic Christian principles.
It’s been a hard few weeks for Gary Faulkner. But he holds out hope for the future by referencing the fact that young people are more supportive of same-sex marriage than older people. That’s because Gary and his Marxist contemporaries have gained the kind of control over the schools that they have not yet gained over the churches.
Of course, the fatal flaw (and I mean that literally) in Gary Faulkner’s grand vision for America is that he and his Marxist contemporaries have been pushing abortion as steadfastly as they have been pushing same-sex marriage. The problem with abortion is that it produces an aging population that does not replenish itself. As people age, they have a tendency to discard silly emotionally-driven ideas – like the idea that 96-98% of society’s conformists should re-arrange themselves on behalf of 2-4% of its deviants.
If Gary Faulkner were not such a champion of abortion rights, 53 million more people would have been born since 1973. About two million of them would have been homosexuals eligible to marry someone of the same sex. And, who knows, some of them might have played mixed doubles in their spare time.
In my last article, I explained how embarrassed the liberal elites were in the aftermath of North Carolina’s decisive passage of the marriage amendment. In their view, it was a triumph for backwoods bigotry. But there was a deeper sentiment lurking beneath the headlines and the sound bites: It’s hardly fair that these bigots get to vote! Just think of how wonderful America would be if only the enlightened ones could make the decisions.
A headline last week on the militant, gay activist site Truth Wins Out read, “North Carolina chooses bigotry over prosperity.” The article went on to say, “Those who live in the intelligent parts of North Carolina voted overwhelmingly against Amendment One, but unfortunately, there just aren’t enough intelligent parts of North Carolina.”
So, those living “in the intelligent parts” of the state, meaning primarily the counties and cities with major university populations, recognized how idiotic it is want to safeguard natural, organic marriage. Unfortunately, most North Carolinians were too dense to understand that a man has the civil right to marry another man. Presumably, the intelligent ones – the university students and their friends, not to mention the professors – have learned what really matters from authoritative sources like “Will and Grace,” a show justly touted for changing American opinion by no less a cultural pundit than our vice president, Joe Biden.
A commenter on another website, self-identified as a white gay woman exclaimed, “As I sit in the back of the bus and can only WISH the president would stop letting these backwoods S.O.B’S push me to the back of the bus as if me and my family do not contribute to this country!”
Backwoods S.O.B.’s indeed. Unintelligent bigots and boars. How do they (we?) even have the right to vote? It’s not fair to the enlightened ones (apparently akin to the “brights,” as some atheists self-defeatingly describe themselves). Presumably none of the intelligent ones live in Mississippi either.
Last week, on my Line of Fire broadcast, I received a call from a young lady named Sophie, a student at the University of North Carolina, living in Durham. She too was terribly embarrassed by the voting actions of her fellow North Carolinians, but she was quite proud of her county and city, since they had voted against Amendment One.
This was part of our conversation:
Sophie: And I don't think that is any coincidence that the counties that are heavily populated, developed and have universities all voted against the amendment.
Brown: So the smart ones, in other words.
Sophie: I'm not saying the smart ones
Brown: The educated ones?
Sophie: I'm just saying the people who were educated about the amendment and understood the consequences of voting for the amendment, because this is way more than marriage because if it was just about marriage then we wouldn't have an amendment at all because it’s already illegal in North Carolina.
Brown: No, Sophie the reason for the Amendment, is so no activist judge can … redefine marriage and when people go for civil unions that's just a step towards it. It was 100% to do with marriage...
A little later in the conversation, we got down to brass tacks:
Sophie: Well, this just shows the downfall of direct democracy. I mean sometimes I think that some things really should be left to the people who understand the consequences of the law and I think a lot of political . . . Almost every person who is high up in the North Carolina government has voiced their, their thoughts against this amendment, including the former democrat and republican mayor of Charlotte.
Brown: So Sophie, I think we . . . we just need the smart people, the educated people who think like you, to take control and to weed out these bigoted backwoods, Bible preachers like me, and America will be a better place. Why don't you just say it? Why don't you just say it?
Sophie: You’re putting words in my mouth. You’re putting words in my mouth.
Brown: Well those are the words you just. . . . OK then say it.
Sophie: I think if people understood the consequences of the amendment, that they would not have voted for it.
There you have it. The people who live in the “intelligent parts” of North Carolina, “the counties that are heavily populated, developed and have universities, all voted against the amendment.” Yes, “Almost every person who is high up in the North Carolina government” opposed the marriage amendment, leaving only the backwards, uneducated, bigoted blue-collar workers to vote for it, and sadly, they constituted a substantial majority. And “this just shows the downfall of direct democracy.”
So I have a proposal. Let’s be fair to America and honor the elites, and let’s get out of the way of the inevitable social progress that is coming our way, like marriage ceremonies pronouncing lesbian couples “bride and broom” (this really happened). And let’s leave it to the cultural “brights” to rule the day.
Surely, no group of highly educated, intelligent and enlightened progressive, social elites has ever hurt their country. Surely we have learned by now that “some animals are more equal than others.”
This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.
