Part 2: Supreme Court Must Rule for State Defined Marriage

[This article is Part 2 in a series. You can read Part 1 here.]

In order to justify denying state government the right to decide who can marry, the court itself has to use the definition of marriage used by that state, or substitute some other definition within it’s power. Any current case regarding laws that restrict marriage to a man and a woman also conforms to what it has meant in America historically; our Christian heritage and natural law. If the court denies that historical definition or the specific state definition then it must take it upon itself to define the meaning for the whole country; a legislative prerogative.

Marriage is currently not denied to anyone in accordance with the requirements in law wherever a marriage law is enacted. There is no right to marry at all from any source higher than the state except for the mandate from God himself. This natural right is given to us through our particular creation as man and woman. We are separate, unique, and complimentary individuals.

In previous legal cases the requirement to be a man or woman as told to us in Genesis was not allowed to be modified to include racial sameness. Modified as to description of a human being, not a behavior of a human being. Race is not a legitimate subset for a human being, it is merely one of many descriptions of a human being. This of course conflicts with the opinion of the strange and famous radical feminist Gloria Steinem, who claims that “There is no such thing as gender, race or class. . . .”, who has been inducted into the apparently non-existent National Woman’s Hall of Fame.

The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 tells us in part:

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. (bold is mine)

In other words, persons cannot be subdivided by these selected features in order to exclude them. These subsets of personhood should be ignored. Race, color, religion, national origin, and homosexuals do indeed exist. Today in 2015, we are asked to consider persons not based on their personhood but on a particular sexual desire. We are asked to create a special legal subset of persons and include them with special recognition.

The problem with this reversal of things is that the particular person of a particular race, color, religion, or national origin, was not given the right to decide exactly what goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations shall exist. Just that (s)he have the same equal enjoyment as every other person who has not been subdivided into a special class. This also puts everyone into the exact same position of NOT enjoying the particular goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations – equally.

This Is The Point

Just as the various states have determined the legal age to marry, if a subset of personhood defined by sexual desires is selected to be given special recognition in law to marry, then can the law legitimately deny any subset of personhood that claims a different desire, the same privilege? Is our Supreme Court going to settle this question by taking it on themselves to legislate, or is SCOTUS going to leave this up to the states’ citizens. Probably the most popular subset would be polygamy. There are other strange desires to marry such as:, bestiality, marrying ones self, marrying a corporation, marrying an object, marriage clubs (fifty shades of marriage?) that would unite many people together for a shared experience. Do you have a favorite – or a desire? Marriage in a social or governing context is simply traditional and open to change by the will of the people in a democracy.

There is certainly no right to marry according to ones own set of preferred qualifications, as there is no right to build a house using ones own private measurements and methods. The potential act of selling that house makes control of the construction process by the state necessary in order to protect the future buyer. The act of marrying that wishes to involve same sexes is a change to the definition of marriage and a removal of procreation from the institution, the benefits of opposite sex parents to a child, and replaces it with the ability to purchase a product – a child. Proof of love or even fondness is not a requirement but proof of age and residency as if one was applying for a license plate for a car.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion in the case of United States v. Windsor, or the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case decided June, 2013, that overturned a law that denied federal benefits to same-sex couples:

Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community. […] After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood. (bold is mine)

Falling all over himself to praise states rights could be taken as a prophetic indictment of our federal court system for insisting on interfering in a state matter and creating the necessity for the issue to be decided at the Supreme Court level. Or, is it actually just personal approval of the legislation. Approval that changes depending on a state creating marriage laws which conflict with the personal opinion of Justice Kennedy. We shall see. Class is just legalese and synonymous with subset in the marriage issue.

Justice Scalia remarked in a dissenting opinion:

To the extent that the Court takes the position that the question of same-sex marriage should be resolved primarily at the state level, I wholeheartedly agree. I hope that the Court will ultimately permit the people of each State to decide this question for themselves. Unless the Court is willing to allow this to occur, the whiffs of federalism in the today’s opinion of the Court will soon be scattered to the wind.

Marriage is Becoming Less Important to Americans

The efforts of the homosexual lobby in America and elsewhere has been to normalize homosexuality which has nothing to do with marriage at all. It has to do with the sexual component of a relationship, hence the description homosexual. Sympathy from the tragic incidents of violence against homosexuals has been used to gain support for the lifestyle instead of the using the legitimate argument of respect for all human life. That argument allows for criticism of others, but not violence. There is a rather childish emotional plea that homosexuals are nice people (fondness) which translates to a demand that you should support their sexuals desires without any objection. This sometimes even works on Catholics who should know what underlies natural law; as in the case of the well known catholic writer Joseph Bottum’s essay, telling us confusedly how he would sacrifice his Catholic doctrine in order to please a homosexual friend.

Normalization Happens Slowly.

Without understanding we give license to desire. It is true that in my lifetime and a little before, we had voluntary attempts to promote morality in public. For example restrictions in the form of saying certain words or showing certain actions in the movies. As the movies grew in popularity and became the central entertainment medium in the world, private lives and desires of the persons making them, as today, influenced content.

The Motion Picture Production Code beginning in 1930 was brought into being as a counter to a movement towards governmental censorship of movies. Later in television, certain words such as “pregnant” only had a metaphorical alternative like “with child”, to give variety to language. As the power of the code was eroded over the years by exceptions granted and leniency given to accommodate business interests catering to human weakness it was eventually replaced in 1968 by the current rating system. A remnant of the recognition that morality exists, but a rejection of the original source of those values. The code could not teach morality but only enforce it’s precepts. Without an understanding of the reasons for moderation and restraint any code will fail because it is perceived as a restriction by an unwanted power imposing behavior capriciously.

If you have had children you understand this concept of gradualness towards normalization from experience. The first time your child tried to stand up you understood where (s)he was headed. Every try and failure only reinforced your faith that (s)he would walk eventually. You knew what the end result would be. Walking the rest of his/her life bar disease or accident.

Sex Has Become a Public Preoccupation

The British version of this show lasted only a few weeks. People actually having sex live on stage on television. They are hidden for now. The next step in this progression towards normalization of sexual activity and it’s variations has to include the removal of the box that hides them. Then the removal of fencing in America’s zoos and the training by America’s public schools of boys and girls to drag their knuckles on the ground when they walk. The incredibly popular Fifty Shades of Grey book and movie is another example of this trend with a new component that glorifies violence.

The big problem with all of this is that there is nothing new going on here except the attempt to normalize this in public for profit. Sex has always happened in private – I can prove it! Making it public only challenges ones view of what is proper to share or do and what is not. Those social leaders, or at least those with a voice to the masses, give whatever their favored idea is to be challenged the support of their group to affect the lemmings of society – the greater part of society. It takes an educated and independant thinker to determine the value of a moral question without the satisfying numbing effect of a loud aggressive group presenting an idea. The group being always those with a voice. Public voices are chosen by those with money to spend on printed works and broadcasting. These controlling entities mostly exist for profit or political control. Some like my fellow writers explain the dangers and support the word of God.

State Defined Marriage Can Turn This Mess Around

There is a suspicious connection between the rise of homosexual sympathacies and the decline in interest in marriage, decrease in the understanding of what marriage is, and the increase in public sharing of personal sexual pleasure. Now the court is asked to join the parade of sexually oriented public foolishness and take the lead and force a change of marriage into a perverse governmental institution, totally disregarding the well being of family life and the raising of children. In other words change American the Beautiful into American the Perverse.

And above all, attempting to defy Our Father who art in heaven . . . . well, good luck with that!