The Fantasies of Homosexuals Aided and Abetted by Judges
Two more judges spat in the faces of citizens. Federal judges in Indiana and Utah have effectively and presumptuously redefined marriage by overturning laws that define marriage as an institution composed of one man and one woman.
Looking at the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court with the swing vote Anthony Kennedy, a man so devoid of wisdom that he claims that opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex unions can be motivated only by “animus,” it appears that in the not too distant future we may have an imperial judiciary rob all Americans of the right to establish marriage policy. It should be noted that the U.S. Constitution does not define marriage and, therefore, it remains the right of citizens through their elected representatives to do just that.
Let’s ruminate for a moment on a hypothetical I posed three years ago. Let’s imagine that the U.S. Supreme Court (or a foolish cabal of five) were to impose same-sex “marriage” (or as Doug Wilson calls it “mirage”) on the entire country à la Roe v. Wade.
After imposing this legal debacle and ontological impossibility on the country, citizens notice that there remains a particular and unique kind of relationship that is identified by the following features: it is composed of two people of major age who are not closely related by blood and are of opposite sexes.
And citizens notice that the sexual union of these two people is the natural and most common way for children to come into existence.
They also notice that wise and even famous people from psychologists to theologians to President Barack Obama have affirmed that mothers and fathers are indispensable to the health and well-being of children. Both mothers and fathers are essential because, as homosexuals and “trans” people tell us continually, men and women are different and those differences are more than anatomical.
Wait, there’s more. They also notice a nearly universal, passionate desire for humans to know about and connect with their biological progenitors (hence the growth of an industry devoted to genealogical searches, an organization devoted to helping children who are the product of anonymous sperm and egg donations, multiple organizations that help adopted children find their biological parents, and a television show that takes famous people on tearjerking journeys into their biological pasts).
So they—that is to say, mere citizens—decide that as a society and as language-users they should have a term to identify this particular, commonplace, cross-cultural, and historical type of relationship. Let’s call it “huwelijk.”
Further, they think that this type of relationship, which is so foundational to and deeply engrained in culture and history, and so richly, palpably, and implacably meaningful to humans that it is at least as deserving of legal recognition and regulation as the genderless institution which society now calls “marriage” and which has no inherent connection to reproduction, but rather is constituted solely by romantic and erotic feelings.
So, these citizens decide to pass a law that recognizes and regulates huwelijk.
The term “marriage” in this brave new world would denote the union between two people of the same sex, and “huwelijk” would denote the union of two people of opposite sexes—both terms of which provide the same legal protections and benefits.
Would the men and women behind the curtain—I mean, black robes—permit the legal recognition and regulation of this type of relationship, which, let’s not forget, actually exists?
And what about homosexuals? Would they permit the legal recognition and regulation of this type of relationship, which actually exists?
I suspect homosexuals would not tolerate any legal recognition of huwelijk. Even if homosexuals win the term “marriage,” and win all the gazillions of benefits they feel that homoerotic unions deserve, and even if they’re able to acquire children through morally dubious means, homosexuals will not rest until they have widespread public affirmation of their relationships which they believe cannot be achieved unless they obliterate all distinctions—including linguistic distinctions—between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions.
They demand that all humans pretend that the romantic/sexual unions of two people of the same sex are identical to the romantic/sexual unions of two people of opposite sexes, which is objectively false. Unless and until there is no word to identify the union between one man and one woman that often produces biological children, homosexuals will not rest.
Fortunately, neither their fantasies about marriage nor their opposition to the legal recognition of huwelijk (likely motivated by animus) will succeed in deceiving everyone. There will always be a remnant of people who know truth.
George Orwell on “Newspeak”:
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all,… a heretical thought…should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever….
[T]he special function of certain Newspeak words… was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them….
[W]ords which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
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.