Anthony Kennedy, Ronald Reagan's third choice to replace Lewis Powell in 1987, cast the deciding vote and wrote the majority opinion in the DOMA case, twisting logic to fit the outcome he wanted. He asserted that the definition of marriage had always been left to the States and the Federal government had no right to interfere, and I quote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." So, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, DOMA had "no legitimate purpose"? Protecting traditional marriage from being mocked and degraded is "no legitimate purpose"? We're in a new country, my friends, a country in which a law passed by 342 Congressmen and 85 Senators and signed by the President of the United States with strong popular support, with the intent of defining marriage for the Federal government and not the States, may be voided by one man for his purpose, that is, advancing homosexuality in our society. Justice Kennedy arrogantly dismisses the idea that the Federal government might have an interest in the institution of marriage, but the whole point of DOMA was to prevent the very trend that is happening now: Pro-gay marriage States attempting to force conservative States to recognize the unions they have sanctioned, using the provisions in Article IV of the Constitution as their basis (that States must respect each others' laws). In short, DOMA was a constitutional device used to prevent an unconstitutional encroachment, and now has been voided as being unconstitutional itself, all so homosexual marriage may proceed.
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the coup de grace to the Proposition 8 case on a technical point, specifically, that the people of California who drafted and helped pass the proposition had no standing in Federal court, given that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Prop 8 and the California state government refused to defend it. Although not a direct nullification of Prop 8 on its merits, this decision guts the proposition in effect and the Court covered itself in shame nonetheless. Here we had a lawfully crafted amendment to the California state constitution, approved by a strong majority of the voters, overturned by a notoriously liberal appeals court and a state government, elected to represent the people and enforce the laws faithfully, refusing to do its duty on purely ideological grounds. Given the state's abdication of their duty, what were the people to do but to present their case themselves? If the people's elected officials refuse to enforce the laws impartially, if they refuse to defend the laws and the courts refuse to uphold the laws, then the people are literally at the mercy of their government and that is not democracy but tyranny.
Both cases are defeats for traditional marriage by themselves but together, they signal a sea change for our country. The Supreme Court has decided to reshape American society according to their liberal views much as they did with Roe v. Wade in 1973, steering our country in a dangerous new direction in the face of strong opposition: If most of the people don't want homosexual marriage, then by thunder, we'll just force them to accept it! Or so goes the argument. On the one hand, they insisted that only the States have the right to define marriage and on the other hand, they rejected a State's lawful attempt to do just that. The only thing that mattered was sweeping away all opposition to homosexual marriage by plain judicial fiat and my question is: Then what? Having redefined marriage to suit themselves, how will the homosexual lobby and their liberal friends in the courts respond when polygamists demand equal treatment, or when pedophiles want to marry their victims, or when groups of people want to marry other groups of people? When the supply of desirable children available for adoption is exhausted (so the homosexuals may ape the family), will heterosexual couples be forced to surrender every other child, or every child, to the State for "redistribution"? The institution loses its meaning, becomes irrelevant and fades away, and our society devolves into a confused mass of self-centered dilettantes demanding recognition for their sexuality, however they choose to define it. Marriage, which used to mean only one thing, is then redefined to mean anything, or more correctly, nothing .
...which is what the homosexual lobby wants. Traditional marriage involves a moral judgment wherein one heterosexual man commits himself to one heterosexual woman for life, providing the perfect environment for the birth, growth and education of children and the prosperity of the family, and where there is moral judgment, there is God. Homosexuals cannot possibly match this arrangement, they are excluded - or rather they exclude themselves - by the lifestyle they choose, they bristle at the notion that what they are doing is immoral - how dare God judge them? - they envy traditional marriage and want very much to mimic it, to share in its social and legal benefits, to be validated. The only way to have what they want, then, is to dispense with the moral dimension altogether, to affirm that sexuality is irrelevant, and to claim that by reserving marriage only for heterosexual couples, society demeans them. This claiming of victimhood goes a long way among the Left, it grants a measure of legitimacy for homosexuals that has obviously resulted in dramatic change in their favor, but what do these decisions mean for our democracy?
- Judicial diktat trumps the democratic process. Both DOMA and Prop 8 enjoyed very strong popular support and were passed by overwhelming majorities in the respective legislatures and they were both overturned. The ability of the people to govern themselves, therefore, through their elected representatives and through ballot initiatives, is seriously undermined, and the people's confidence in their government evaporates since the government may choose which laws they will honor and which they won't, at the same time insisting that the people strictly obey every law without exception. The courts now have power not accorded them under our Constitution and be assured: They will use it as they see fit, and they will use it to gain even more power.
- Federalism will suffer since neither the Federal government nor the States will understand exactly what they may do. The Defense of Marriage Act was voided in deference to the States and Prop 8 was voided in deference to a Leftist agenda, so where's the line, really?
- Religious freedom, especially for Christians, is diminished and will continue to suffer. What if a Christian wedding planner refuses to serve a homosexual couple? What if a Christian minister refuses to perform a homosexual wedding? Would a Christian church have its property seized for the same reason, would its members be liable for criminal prosecution?
The Left interprets these decisions as great victories for civil rights and they dismiss conservatives' concerns as the usual handwringing when society changes faster than they'd like, but be wary: If they believe they are riding a rising tide, a rising tide can indeed lift all boats but it can also drown everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment