Posted on 06/17/2006 6:29:00 PM PDT by Jeremydmccann
Baker v. State 170 Vt. 194 (1999) and Goodrich v. Department of Public Health SJC-08860 Mass. (2003) are the two higher-court cases that have resulted in a grant of marital rights for homosexuals. In Vermont, the Court required of the Legislature to grant “civil unions” or an equivalent of marriage to homosexuals. In Massachusetts, the Court imposed upon the Commonwealth the requirement to use the word “marriage” in addition to the right to a civil union by homosexuals. The State (not particularly desirous to defend marriage), with the aid of amici curæ briefs from various “religious right” groups made several arguments against the homosexual plaintiffs who sought to change the marriage laws in their respective states. The major arguments from the religious right are summarized below.
Arguments In Support of Protecting the Institution of Marriage
1. Marriage Promotes the Bonds Between A Man And A Woman or The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family
In Baker, the argument was made. The Court conceded, “The plain and ordinary meaning of ‘marriage’ is the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.” The homosexual plaintiffs in Baker conceded this point, but “nevertheless [argued a statutory point] that the underlying purpose of marriage is to protect and encourage the union of committed couples.” The State argued that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples, since that would “promot[e] a permanent commitment between couples.”
In Goodrich, the Court opened its opinion with the following words:
Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. … The question before us is whether … the Commonwealth may deny … civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. Emphasis added.
Stated later, Massachusetts stated “it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of marriage partners to one another … that is the sine qua non of civil marriage.”
The Presuppositional Fix is in — the Courts have defined marriage as mutual commitment between two individuals. To argue that those individuals are by necessity of opposite sexes imposes upon the Courts a presupposition they have long ago abandoned. As the Court stated in Goodrich, “the plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage.” In the Court’s view, marriage is not a “union between a man and a woman,” but a union between individuals.
The Court will not be stopped by any suggestion that “tradition maintains.” In Baker, the Court adopted a revolutionary view of American history as propounded by Marxist historians. The Court took notice that “the revolt against Great Britain unleashed what one historian … has called ‘a revolution within a revolution.’ … By attempting to claim equal rights for Americans against the English, regardless of birthright or social status, ‘even the most aristocratic of southern Whig planters … were pushed into creating an egalitarian ideology that would be and even as early as 1776 was being turned against themselves.’” The Court maintained that, essentially, Pandora’s Egalitarian Box has been opened, and the “traditional virtues” for which our Founders stood and fought, they actually fought against, even if unintentionally, by codifying a radical egalitarianism of ever expansive fundamental rights into their documents. Forget the facts against this argument. As stated, the Presuppositional Fix is in.
Additionally, the court quickly reads into this argument from Tradition the implication that that homosexuals are promiscuous (which most are). The Courts have, despite evidence, repudiated any suggestion that a person’s “sexual preference” by necessity leads one to promiscuity. They will look for the one homosexual couple that has not strayed. In fact, Goodrich claimed to be living committed to each other and no other for a good number of years.
Besides, the courts don’t much care about promiscuity, since no one will dare suggest that promiscuity leads to detrimental health consequences that State sanctioned condom-promotion programs can’t fix.
The additional assertion, that monogamy will be hampered when married couples see promiscuous sodomites elevated to equal station, is quickly disposed of by a simple assertion, even if it is untrue, “How does a man marrying a man hurt you.” If heterosexual married couples can’t see sodomites copulating promiscuously without it leading to their own debauchery, perhaps they (the heterosexuals) weren’t committed enough to be married.
The argument is similar to arguing against pornography and obscenity. “A discussion of the subject would likely prove redundant. If you believe in principle that four-letter words are a ‘liberating influence,’ then you will inescapably find them so. If you believe in principle that their usage is vulgar and demoralizing, you will surely find them so.” R.J. Rushdoony, Politics of Pornography, Arlington House Books, New York (1974) at 43. Since the Courts have predetermined that homosexuality is “sexually liberating,” and a positive to the community we will not be able to convince them that denying homosexuals marriage will ruin marriage. Besides, several on “our side” argue that “we respect” whatever two people do in the privacy of their own homes. Once that respect is granted, Marriage is not too far behind.
2. Marriage Promotes Procreation
Massachusetts disposed of this argument with felicity. Simply stated, “the traditional concept that marriage’s primary purpose is procreation … is incorrect.” The Court points out that statute “contains no requirement that the applicants for marriage license attest to their ability or intention to conceive children by coitus. Fertility is not a condition of marriage … While it is certainly true that many, perhaps most, married couples have children together (assisted or unassisted), it is … not the begetting of children that is the sine qua non of civil marriage.
“If procreation where a necessary component of civil marriage, our statutes would draw a tighter circle around the permissible bounds of nonmarital child-bearing and the creation of families by noncoital means.”
Baker went further and offered that “the reality today is that increasing numbers of same-sex couples are employing increasingly efficient assisted-reproductive techniques to conceive … children.”
3. Marriage Is Better For Raising Children
In both Baker and Goodrich, the Court annihilated any such suggestion that children were better raised in a “two-gender” home by the mere assertion that if that were true, homosexuals would be prohibited from adopting children in that State. The Commonwealth (Goodrich) conceded that homosexuals were good parents oft times, but asserted that “two-gender” was better generally. If that assumption is out there, and not refuted, the Court will manage a lesser, but not perfect, situation by permitting homosexuals to marriage. The Court will take notice of the many less than desirable conditions for rearing children by heterosexuals and baldly assert that some homosexuals could do better, and thus all homosexuals should not be denied the right to marriage.
As the courts previously determined, marriage is a commitment between individuals. Thus, the Massachusetts Court said “Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage … prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated and socialized,” that occur ordinarily through the individuals marrying. Thus, by granting marriage to homosexuals, the court improved upon the situation of the children of homosexuals by permitting the homosexuals to become a union.
Arguments Against Permitting Sodomites to Marry
1. The Slippery Slope Argument
In both Baker and Goodrich, the “religious right” through amici briefs asserted that homosexual marriage will lead to one, several or all of the following: bigamy, polygamy, polyandry, incest, bestiality, marriage for convenience &c. The Courts quickly dismissed such assertions by stating, “Maybe. Maybe not.” While such assertions “may be plausible, forecasts as to what the future may hold … [they] are not … susceptible to empirical proof before they occur.” Baker. If homosexual marriage is legitimate on its own merits, into what is might lead, the Court’s do not concern themselves, since the courts, better than many of our traditionalist friends, understand Duty Ours — Consequences God’s.
2. Bald Assertions of Tradition and History
“Historically, no one has ever done this,” or “We’ve always treated homosexuals poorly, have only recently started treating them nicely, and homo-marriage just goes too far — now is not the time” are arguments the State made in Baker and the amici made in Goodrich.
Any such argument, that historically homosexuals are poorly treated, will cause the Court to opine, “And now is the time to stop poorly treating this suspect class of peaceful and loving individuals.” Massachusetts merely asserted against such “discrimination” that “Massachusetts has a strong affirmative policy of preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” Vermont held, “To the extent that state action historically has been motivated by an animus against a class, that history cannot provide a legitimate basis for continued unequal application of the law.”
If the argument goes, “we have only recently started to grant rights to homosexuals, so now is not the time for marriage — but we’ll get there” the Court will easily obliterate such an argument with the assertion, if it will be right in the future, certainly it is fine now. The people will become ready through the Court’s mandate. The State argued this explicitly in oral arguments in Baker.
Summary
Recently, all the failed arguments were made before a lower court in the New York City case, Hernandez v. City of New York, which has resulted in homosexual marriage in New York City.
In summary of each of the above five named arguments against homosexual marriage, “none of the interests asserted … provide a reasonable and just basis for the continued exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits incident to a civil marriage.” Baker.
Perhaps the most recent decision coming out of New York City is the best demonstration of the court’s contempt of tradition. “The challenges to laws banning whites and non-whites from marriage demonstrates that the fundamental right to marry the person of one’s choice may not be denied based on longstanding and deeply held traditional beliefs…” Further, “Both the New York Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court have made clear that the State may not deny rights to a group of people based on no more than traditional attitudes … of that group.”
The point is this: “thus saith tradition” is a losing argument. Traditions change, and since the court thinks it is the agent of change, it will employ that right.
Recently, arguing against marriage in New York, the City of New York fell all over itself to ensure that the City was not maintaining that homosexuals could not have good families, were not productive members of the community, or were “bad people” in any way. Rather, the argument was a bald assertion of “thus saith tradition.” The City didn’t even attempt to offer the three Arguments In Support of Protecting the Institution of Marriage above.
Once the argument has moved from a critique of buggery, the argument has been lost. If homosexuals are “nice people,” who we respect and love, and who often time are great parents, care-givers and contributors to society who are capable (at least theoretically) of monogamous relations, why should they be denied marriage?
The case in Maryland will be decided in the Courts. If the lower courts deny marriage to homosexuals, it will be appealed and the Appeals Court will likely follow the example of Vermont and Massachusetts. Thus, Defend Maryland Marriage has decided to seek the passage of a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.
I recommend addressing the issue thusly: “Government, either the People through their Delegates, the Governor, or Courts, you lack the jurisdiction to define marriage.” If the Amendment is promoted as “the People speaking,” the Courts will grab it and merely assert, “To the extent that state action historically has been motivated by an animus against a class, that history cannot provide a legitimate basis for continued unequal application of the law” and they will reverse the “will of the People.” There is some precedent for this in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). The “People of Colorado” determined in the most benign language that no group, either homosexuals or straights, will have a right above the other group. The U.S. Supreme Court beat that argument down by declaring that such a codification implicitly put homosexuals and straights on different fields, and that hate crimes laws, public accommodation laws, &c. might be undone if this Amendment were allowed to stand.
We must be clear that we defend marriage not because of its traditional benefits to a society, not because children will suffer, not because public schools will embrace homosexuality, &c., but because we as mere humans have no jurisdiction over this institution, to tamper with it is presumption against the Lord, and to a certain degree what we joked about during the campaign, “We don’t want another plane to crash into a building.”
Sodomites are an abomination to God who should no longer be afforded the ability to adopt, copulate with, or educate children. Once that argument is abandoned, the vacuum is filled with the notion that they are contributors to society who ought not be denied various rights which the State has created in recent years.
If the Courts give us homosexual marriage in Maryland, the governor or the legislature must be prepared to simply declare the ruling unlawful, or incur the guilt for the usurpation of power for their connivance at the presumption against God.
An intended course apologizing for the allegations, “untrue!, untrue!” of hate and seeking to merely permit the people to have their traditions is doomed to failure in this battle. The Courts themselves are the problem (by which I mean We the People who created them are the problem) and unless we humble ourselves and seek the Lord, He likely will not heal our land. The only way to keep the courts from granting homosexual marriage is to advocate the denial of any jurisdiction over marriage to the State — civil governments do not have authority over this institution created by God but to punish its violation and to determine fault in a suit for divorce.
IB4Z?
I doubt it.
What does ib4z mean?
It means that there are folks out there who wish they could smite you.
IN B 4 THE ZOT
same sex marriage is sexist
different sex marriage is diversity
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.