When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead…
~ Grace Slick
A week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether to impose same-sex faux-marriage on all 50 states. Judges have already imposed it on 25 states in contravention of the will of the people in those states.
Many on the political Left and Right are predicting that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide in June to impose same-sex “mirage” (hat tip to theologian Doug Wilson for that term) on the entire country despite the absurdity of finding anything in the Constitution that would require the legal recognition of homoerotic unions as “marriages.” Such a requirement exists only in the shadowy penumbras formed by the gaseous emanations emitted by the phantasmagorical imaginations of homosexual activists and their judicial accomplices.
It doesn’t take much in the way of augural ability to predict this outcome. You have one justice, Anthony Kennedy, issuing this mind-blowing statement about liberty in 1992: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
Well, that was either Anthony Kennedy or Timothy Leary.
Inquiring minds would like to know how Kennedy reconciles this expansive mysterious definition of liberty with lawsuits against Christian business owners whom homosexuals seek to compel to produce a product they have never produced (e.g., cakes or floral arrangements for same-sex faux-marriages) and which violates their religious beliefs.
And it’s impossible to square such a definition of liberty with New York Times op-ed columnist Frank Bruni’s claim that “Baking a cake, arranging roses, running an inn: These aren’t religious acts….” Bruni is unwilling to allow orthodox Christians to define religious liberty in any way that the Left doesn’t like or that affects actions outside their pews, homes, and hearts.
In 1996, Kennedy ruled to overturn a Colorado law that prohibited establishing “sexual orientation” as a basis for a protected class. Such a law was, of course, rational in that “sexual orientation” is just a linguistic legerdemain used to render equivalent heterosexuality—which is constituted by objective criteria like anatomy and biology—and homosexuality—which is constituted solely by feelings and volitional acts. What other condition constituted solely by feelings and volitional acts is granted protected status?
In this case Kennedy wrote that such a law reflected a “bare desire to harm” and was motivated by nothing other than “animus.” Apparently the desire not to open the protected status floodgates to other groups whose “identities” are constituted by their feelings and volitional acts reflects a bare desire to harm such groups in Kennedy’s wonderland. Methinks a hookah-smoking caterpillar had given Kennedy the call.
Then in 2013 when Kennedy voted to overturn parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had passed the House 342-67, passed the Senate 85-14, and had been signed into law by President Bill Clinton, Kennedy argued that the “essence” and “avowed purpose” of DOMA was “to impose a…stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages.”
In Kennedy’s befogged mind, no recognition of the natural procreative potential that inheres the union of a man and woman or of the needs and rights of children could possibly have factored into Congress’s decision to pass DOMA. No siree, it was just a pernicious desire on the parts of 427 Congresspersons and Bill Clinton to stigmatize homosexuals.
To aid in our divination of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, let’s take a quick look at the out-of-court shenanigans of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. Ginsburg has officiated at two same-sex “weddings,” and Kagan has officiated at one. At Ginsburg’s first “wedding,” she said, “People who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings…in the marriage relationship.”
At least as illuminating is the statement Ginsburg made at the National Constitution Center about the increasing societal acceptance of pseudogamy (hat tip to Professor Anthony Esolen for that term): “So I see the genius of our Constitution, and of our society, is how much more embracive we have become than we were at the beginning.”
The slippery embracive slope
Perhaps Ginsburg hasn’t foreseen or doesn’t care where our marriage abolitionists the genius of our Constitution is leading us. Our embraciveness has far more embracing yet to do.
Polyamorists and polygamists will ramp up their demands that marriage be “expanded” to allow unions composed of more than two partners. Who is the government to tell them whom they can love? Why should their children have their family structures stigmatized? Why should binary unions receive benefits that plural unions are denied? What, other than animus, could motivate people to oppose plural unions? And how will the legalization of plural unions affect the marriages of couples—hetero or homo?
Next will come the brothers who too are in love. They can’t reproduce, so there’s no risk of birth defects, but even in the case of sibling lovers, the risk of birth defects is relatively small. Moreover, we don’t legally require genetic testing prior to marriage to determine if non-related couples are at high risk of passing on an inherited disease. And genetic testing can always be done during pregnancy when there’s plenty of time to dispose of defective products of conception. Remember too that Justice Ginsburg has proclaimed from on high that people who love each other should be able to marry. Who are we to judge? If marriage has no inherent nature but rather is merely a social construct, we can reconstruct it in any way embracive sexual anarchists’ and judges’ hearts desire.
Effect on public schools
Once five judges impose same-sex marriage on every state, be prepared for public schools to be recruited into the unholy effort to indoctrinate children with Leftist beliefs about marriage. Once same-sex mirage is imposed on all states, government schools will be compelled to talk about it in glowing, biased terms from kindergarten on.
Parents (and future parents), if you have not yet made plans to exit public schools, the time to do so is now. Your job is not to help children who have the misfortune of being raised by homosexuals feel good about their unjust family structures. Your job is to protect your own child’s mind from false ideas, to protect their hearts from loving wrongly, and to preserve their innocence.
C.S. Lewis, concerned about the relativism he saw promoted in schools, warns in is book on education, The Abolition of Man, that “Without the aid of trained emotions, the intellect is powerless against the animal organism….The head rules the belly through the chest—the seat…of emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments.”
“Progressives” have taken control of public education. They seek to organize the emotions of children by trained habit into stable but wrong sentiments. It is almost impossible to properly organize the emotions of children by trained habit into stable sentiments that reflect truth when they are in public schools for seven hours a day, 186 days a year, for 13 or more years.
In the aftermath of what should be an unthinkable cultural event, Christians can respond rightly or wrongly. To acquiesce or to persist in our cowardly passivity which has facilitated the degradation of marriage and injury to children would heap shame on travesty. Instead, Christians should dig their spines out of the closet, dust them off, and put them to good use. It is hoped they yet have chests that spines can support.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.