Yes, Mr. Perkins, you're absolutely correct; in an policy-outcome sense, this was yet another "case" of robed despots functionally dropping the same side of the scales of justice in the wrong direction once again. But that was not what was truly wrong about it:
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent refusal to hear cases upholding same-sex marriage will only ensure the issue rages for years to come, says Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
Okay, you're flat-out wrong about that one, Tony, because once Barack Obama's dictatorship is formalized sometime in the next two years, no more dissent against the Regime on any issue will be tolerated. But even if your sunny, optimistic scenario does play out, and the sodomarriage issue does "rage for years to come," it will only be in a pyrrhic, academic sense. Which is to say, we on the Right will bitch about it endlessly while the Left rubs our noses endlessly in the fact that it is "settled policy" and a "constitutional right" because "the Supreme Court said so," even if "only" implicitly. Or, in other words, aside from the implicit part, precisely like abortion on demand for the past going-on forty two years, with no end in sight besides The One's impending coup. And, really, it will be even worse, because with abortion, we can nibble around the edges (restrictions based upon age of the mother, which stage of pregnancy, etc.), but "marriage equality" is a fundamentally binary proposition: Either queers can "marry" or they can't. (And yes, I can use the term "queers" because Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. You're welcome).
By the way, there's actually no such thing as "marriage equality," because there's only one version of marriage. Just thought I'd gratuitously toss that truism in there. Once again, you're welcome.
I know, Mr. Perkins, that you wish the SCOTUS understood that truism, which has only been around for six or seven millennia (or, IOW, almost as long as some of the Justices). I do to. I also know that you wish your adversaries, like Ted Olsen, weren't doing the devil's work:
Ted Olsen, a conservative lawyer who represented plaintiffs in Virginia, disagreed, saying federal courts were handling the issue "in an appropriate and proper way."
Olsen said the analogy shouldn't be to Roe v. Wade, but to the 1967 Supreme Court decision that struck down the bans on interracial marriage.
"We have a Constitution and a bill of rights precisely because we want protections from majority rule," he said.
Perkins countered that same-sex marriage doesn't to bans on interracial marriage because the latter is "an arbitrary boundary created by man between the races. That doesn't exist in nature."
There is, he argued, a natural boundary between people of the same sex getting married.
"They can't procreate. There's nothing in nature to say that that's normal," Perkins said.
Well, Tony, there are examples of homosexuality in nature, but it's still dysfunctional and impedes species propagation. And how much more so in men and women, who are not animals but created in God's image with free will and a moral compass, and thus the ability to overcome fleshly urges and retrograde instincts. That, in turn, makes the family even more important, not just in terms of population maintenance, but societal health and social cohesion. Which points to how American culture has grown more and more divided and rancorous in more or less direct proportion to the degree to which the Left has dragged our society away from biblical precepts.
But I digress.
And yes, you're welcome.
Here's what neither Tony Perkins nor Ted Olsen or their respective law-degree-holders even dimly grasp: Nowhere in the United States Constitution is any branch of the federal government empowered to do or regulate or decree or rule on anything regarding marriage, sodo- or otherwise. The States - the creators of the federal government via the U.S. Constitution - did not delegate that power to it. Therefore, the SCOTUS, constitutionally speaking, cannot impose sodomarriage, actively or passively.
They are, of course, doing it anyway, because the federal government slipped its constitutional leash decades ago, and in the "case" of the judicial branch, over two centuries ago. In today's Obamerikastan, the rule of law is dead for a ducat, dead, the rule of the Left reigns supreme, and raw, unfettered power is the coin of the realm. And the imposition of "marriage equality" is just the beginning of the Lavender Lobby's jihad against marriage. I fully expect the next step to be growing legal erosions of "straight" marriage (active, as opposed to the passive erosions - e.g. "no-fault divorce" - of the past half-century) and eventually, a ban on heterosexuality altogether. "We're all gay, now" will no longer be hyperbole, but a government mandate, along with compulsory alternative means of procreation. And full exemptions for Muslims, of course.
But in the Old Republic (may she rest in peace), marriage, like everything else the States didn't delegate to Washington, D.C., was a State matter in which those who wanted to "commit indecent acts" and have them officially recognized could migrate to States that catered to that sort of thing, and vice versa. Live and let live locally, as it were. Not an impulse that Messrs Perkins or Olsen would recognize, because "having someone without a law degree discussing the Constitution [i]s ludicrous and demeaning to the legal profession."
You're welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment