‘Marriage Equality’ Spells Marriage Extinction
Last year the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, literally shook Western civilization to the core. By ruling part of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, “unconstitutional,” the leftist majority put its official stamp of approval on the notion of so-called “same-sex marriage.” With Justice Anthony Kennedy at the helm, the Court began recklessly deconstructing, radically redefining and rendering functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage.
The court shook its fist at God, declaring the abominable sin of Sodom “equal” to God’s design for human sexuality.
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 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, if confronted with an irrefutable argument against some hallowed left-wing delusion, is to ridicule the opposition. Such is the tactic employed whenever a thinking person walks into the room and points the following fact: 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?
The Supreme Court has a history of radically redefining that which cannot be redefined. Though examples abound, I’m thinking specifically, as concerns the topic at hand, the Court’s 2003 holding in Lawrence v. Texas.
In Lawrence, the liberal majority, for the first time in history, magically declared 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.’”
The supposedly honorable High Court brought great shame upon itself and upon the once-greatest nation on earth. It employed San Francisco-style social engineering games as 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.”
If the Supremes continue down this destructive path, Ms. Gessen may well have her way.
(Updated version. First published March 2013)
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More