It’s unbelievable to me the highest court in the land has told the people anchored in Judeo-Christian tradition that a key component of their beliefs has been wrong these past 7,000 years.
All societies throughout history, including non Judeo-Christians, have held traditional marriage in an unfair, discriminatory, unacceptable light. The world and its hundreds of billions of peoples who’ve gone before were wrong per USSC, defining marriage as solely between a man-woman; wrong, using it to provide order/ stability in society; wrong, choosing it overwhelmingly as the preferred pairing of choice; wrong, thinking there’s a biological imperative to procreate, to propagate the species.
Hundreds of billions of people, 7000 years of practical application, the whole of civilization down through the ages, all wrong. I guess words like matrimony and marriage will have to be redefined. Change the dictionaries, encyclopedias, legal contracts, everything. In the judgement of five(5) old men/women, all liberal lamebrains, it’s all out the window.
First Obamacare, telling us we have to buy something whether we want to or not, and now this, telling every married couple in America, and every future couple, the definition of their union has been called to question and, upon review, found lacking in scope, spirit and origin.
First glance, this appears to violate the constitutional mandate for separation of church and state. Those who say no, it only affects civil unions not religious ones, aren’t giving pause to the fact, if churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and other houses of worship don’t accept this concept and refuse to marry same-sex couples, they will be in violation of law. Those enforcing law may threaten to revoke a non-profit status of a non-conforming entity. Big bad government can say, my way or the highway!
Forcing religion to accept secular rejection of its beliefs is like a theocratic tyranny, under which a laity government must answer and seek approval from a religious one, like Iran. Obama’s government has already badgered Catholicism, requiring its institutions to offer insurance covering birth control and abortion.
What marriage surprises are next? Bigamy? Polygamy? Polyandry? Transgender partner switching? Hetero-homo permutations/combinations? Adult-child unions? Bestiality? Laugh if you will, but there are proponents for all these, seeking nothing less than full normalization of their weird, libertine behaviors.
Religion, in spite of faults, has sanctioned against these obvious perversions and twistings, preaching logic/sensibility since the beginning of recorded history. This goes to the idea of absolutes. Are all things subject to change, or are certain things immutable and unchangeable in their very natures? Can order be conserved in the face of constant change? Can it happen something desired by a few and useful as applied to them(?), can be toxic/destructive to the many, directly or indirectly? Should we in society’s majority, allow this to happen?
Something like 10% are gay, though I think it’s less. Of these, a percentage are not biologically/psychologically hardwired to be gay. They are free spirited libertines/bisexuals who experiment, and indulge every fancy. I empathize with the half or two-thirds who can’t help themselves, but these others? Why turn the whole of society upside down, pandering to these marginal hedonists?
Societies are fragile things. We’d do well not to tinker without giving pause to how normalizing fringe and marginal elements might dilute, if not contaminate, the whole. This is the slippery slope in action. How many peas can we put in tomato soup be- fore it turns into pea soup?
When the issue of gay marriage first arose I thought why not? I also thought this would be a new meaning for the concept of marriage, so it should be called by a different name rather than modifying the definition of a word so universally understood to mean a man and woman.
A review of the record will show gays originally brought this up as a demand for equal rights. They wanted their bonds and unions to enjoy the same legal rights/privileges as a married couple. This was agreeable to persons like me. My only concern was marriage should continue to mean hetero, and words like bi-marriage, gay bond/union, civil contract, same-sex agreement etc. would mean non-hetero.
The new word would be legally synonymous with marriage, but would impart an instant truth as to what comprised the relationship. What’s the big deal? By genetics/choice gays are different. Why not have their partnerings called by a different name? We can’t escape our physical realities, and to suggest we don’t like being reminded with legal formalities is to deny who we are.
Surely it’s a healthy thing to wear our identities with pride and confidence, and do all we can to show we’re as good as anyone else. A well-intended word or name validating our lifestyle or reality should not diminish our value as human beings, demean our circumstance or devalue our relationships.
I think the constitution’s writers would agree, preserving the word marriage to its original meaning and creating a new word to define non-hetero pairings. Again, the new word would not marginalize or diminish the intrinsic value of such relationships nor in any way reduce their worth or integrity, as compared with the existing word.
This ruling goes far beyond equity for gays. It demonstrates the judicial activism that is rampant in the land, subverting the will of the people. It also speaks to the willful secularization of our society, and the strong anti-religious sentiments that are basking in our courts, state houses and federal government.
I think a majority supports gay unions, just doesn’t want it called marriage, which remains what we all know it to be. A few ideologues in black robes can’t change that. Our majority must ignore this activist baloney and take legal steps to reverse it. Let’s send a message to its backers this isn’t over. They won a momentary battle, but they will not win this war!
You’ve been reading Shaneview
I’m Al Shane
Leave a Reply