Posted on 04/29/2015 12:04:13 PM PDT by lifeofgrace
What starts as a “rights” issue inevitably ends up enforced at the barrel of the gun, and this highlights the importance of correctly defining words, especially before the Supreme Court.
In the end, our society has to get along on these issues and come to some agreement—even if it’s to agree to disagree. But society’s disagreements eventually work themselves out in law, and the Left’s aversion to even the most basic exploration of how changes in law affect our citizens is most troubling.
The Left would have us change human taxonomy the way Facebook has changed its gender policy. Instead of two biologically diverse and static genders, a plethora of gender identities arises, each deserving of its own equal treatment under law (this leads to some absurd examples, like pointing out how Bruce Jenner is a minsogynst). Instead of a definition of marriage as one man and one woman, a panoply of relationships based on “dignity and devotion” is used.
When the Left seeks to legally define marriage in a way that potentially opens the door to trampling long-held beliefs as suddenly dated and discredited, many people would be harmed in the process. Framed as a question which cuts to the center of the case argued before SCOTUS Tuesday: does the issue of 3% of Americans, and whatever part of that 3% actually decide to marry, rise to the level of forcing a much larger segment of our society to abandon its religious right of conscience?
Bible-believing Christians are being harmed even now by the massive leverage that LGBT activists summon, aided by their progressive, post-modern allies who wish religion would simply vanish. The Left as a whole has taken up the cause of the supposed-underdog in order to redefine marriage, not to provide an equal set of legal rights and benefits to same-sex partners.
The outworking of these definitions reaches into every aspect of society: parenthood, finances, charitable giving, religion-based organizations, business, jobs to name a few. Such an enormous lever should be treated with extreme care, and Justice Alito asked the right questions during Tuesday’s hearing in Obergfell v. Hodges—a case with potential national consequences since it could strike down state laws and constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage.
Alito constructed a situation where two sets of couples, one a same-sex couple and the other an opposite-sex couple who are siblings, have lived together for 25 years, and asked why the law should treat them differently.
The Left reacted with indignation at the question itself.
To his great credit, Verrilli did not trip up on the fact that Alito just openly compared same-sex love with sibling incest. Instead, he responded that "marriage is something more fundamental" than two siblings living together—it's about dignity and devotion, not "household expenses and chores."Alito’s line of questioning is completely logical if SCOTUS believes its considering a complete redefinition of marriage as a legal term and an institution. But the Left characterizes their position in the case as a civil rights issue affecting gays as a group.Alito's question to Verrilli built upon an equally insulting question earlier in the morning. In an exchange with Bonauto, Alito strongly implied that legal same-sex marriage would inevitably lead to legal polygamy. The logic that marriage can be limited "to two people who want to have sexual relations" doesn't hold, he insisted; if gays are permitted to marry, "larger groups," like "two men and two women," must also be allowed to wed. Alito's puzzlingly nasty statements lingered for the remainder of the morning, vividly illustrating how ignorant the arguments against marriage equality can often be.
When Bonauto said gay couples hoped to “join” the institution of marriage, Roberts suggested that they were instead looking to “redefine” it, since marriage was defined as one man, one woman throughout history. Roberts also told Bonauto that if the court strikes down same-sex marriage bans, “there will be no more debate,” which “can close minds.” He, like Kennedy, seems concerned that ruling in favor of marriage equality would go too far, too fast. But unlike Kennedy, Roberts has never gone on the record defending the dignity of same-sex couples.To the Left, “marriage” is already defined in their minds to include same-sex couples, and they are simply being excluded by rank discrimination, not unlike anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S. But even with the black civil rights movement, nobody forced churches to marry interracial couples—and there are no clear Biblical laws of conscience against the practice, so churches are free to make their own interpretation. In that fight, truly there is a “right side of history.”
The fact that so many churches and Bible-believing Christians would be forced by government power to comply with a same-sex marriage mandate is a sign that those in society pushing this agenda are moving too fast, even if the country is moving in that direction. Would it be enough for states to offer civil unions, or Congress to amend tax laws to include benefits for same-sex couples, until in the fulness of time, the movement gains its own supermajority in society? These institutions would either change through natural processes—or they wouldn’t.
The concept of “they wouldn’t” is so feared by the LGBT community that they feel they need the heavy hand of government to force all to comply with what is really a social issue. All the talk of dignity, nobility, and sacredness surrounding marriage doesn’t really get to the core of the issue. The Constitution doesn’t guarantee these things. It does guarantee the rights of the people to self-government, to choose their own representatives and political leaders, and to author and approve the the laws governing them.
Those pushing same-sex marriage through the courts don’t want these questions asked, nor do they want the consequences of same-sex marriage enforcement explored—although those questions have been more than sufficiently answered, and the consequences are as close as looking at Canada. The 14th Amendment which prohibits states from abridging “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protects religious Americans as well as LGBT Americans.
The Left is swinging a hammer at the First Amendment, and doing so without even thinking about what that pillar supports. Sadly, if SCOTUS rules to overturn state marriage definitions and protection for religious conscience, we will all find out what is lost the hard way: ultimately enforced by the barrel of a gun.
(crossposted from RedState.com)
our neighbor commented, when Alioto asked why 4 lawyers couldn’t all get a ‘marriage’ license together,
that ...
this would actually be a very good idea.
“If all the lawyers were busy screwing each other, then they’d not be shafting the rest of us as much....”
(just kidding, esquires....)
I think we all know the fix is in. One way or another
if SCOTUS rules to overturn state marriage definitions and protection for religious conscience,
You will see A lot of States Abolish Marriage completely in their State, which by the way they should, it wasn’t til the early 1900’s that States got involved and started requiring a LICENSE to MARRY in an effort to stop Blacks from Marrying Whites.
GIVE IT ALL BACK TO THE CHURCH where it belongs, Marriage is a Religious Institution.
Alito did NOT say opposite sex siblings living in the same household was incest, nor was it implied. Back years ago it was not uncommon for bachelor and maiden siblings to live together either before or after their parents died or even after spouses passed away. Only a dirty minded liberal’s would jump to incest.
I know siblings who were going to share an apartment, but one died just prior to the move. Families take care of each other.
The problem lies with the legal system. It's broken, when it comes to social issues.
You do realize this is about 2% about gay rights and 98% about criminalizing Christian beliefs, right?
So the attempts to compromise with them on this issue are fruitless, no pun intended.
Does this mean the gay community would condemn two sisters who wished to marry? How quaint.
If a state is forced to “recognize” gay marriage, then it is the solemn obligation of all Christians in that state to push hard for secession from the union.
That’s because even if states get out of the marriage business, they’ll still have to treat “married” queers the same as they would regular married couples for purposes of taxation, employee benefits, etc.
That would leave us no other choice but to separate from the United States. If no states break away after a few years, it will be time to consider re-settling en masse to other, more hospitable countries. That would leave the U.S. with only its liberals/takers, leading to its rapid decline.
I heard Rush talking about the same thing today.
“You will see A lot of States Abolish Marriage completely in their State, which by the way they should, it wasn’t til the early 1900’s that States got involved and started requiring a LICENSE to MARRY in an effort to stop Blacks from Marrying Whites.”
At that point, I think the left would successfully argue that they cannot because their motives are bad.
There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" just as there is no such thing as man giving birth.
That’s because even if states get out of the marriage business, they’ll still have to treat “married” queers the same as they would regular married couples for purposes of taxation, employee benefits, etc
No they Don’t, just ABOLISH EVERYTHING with regards to Marriage, Marriage is a RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, do it on 1st Amendment Grounds and ELIMINATE ALL BENEFITS,Tax Breaks... at the STATE LEVEL precisely because it would be an “Endorsement” of Religion.
Then watch them squeal.
“Verrilli did not trip up on the fact that Alito just openly compared same-sex love with sibling incest”
Same-sex love....hahahahaha that is so laughable.
What one man does to another man’s anus is not love...it is vile, filthy, and disgusting...and it is deadly and leads to HIV/AIDS.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention statistics March 2015:
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.
No reasonable society should consider making something so incongruent with societal norms and so dangerous to that same society without fully considering all the ramifications. No reasonable society that is.
It’s amazing that I live in a time where these questions are even being asked.
It is as though all of history is on trial and we’re finally going to have to answer questions about morality.
I see the big conflict as an issue of ethics systems. Our laws and system of government were *always* compatible with Judeo-Christian *ethics*. It was the basis of thinking. Those that wish to eliminate religion do not realize they have no ethics basis for law and the laws they want passed will, inevitably, be in conflict with existing laws.
In this case it manifests as an incompatible set of rights - gay rights vs. religious rights. Those that aren’t religious are not sensitive to religious rights and therefore don’t care about them. They’re as guilty as those that didn’t care that slaves were slaves, it didn’t impact them. So while it is usually liberals going on about “revolution”, REAL revolution is caused by trampling on peoples inalienable rights. The left really thinks that they can use this issue to mock, ridicule, punish and silence Christians. It isn’t about marriage, it is about the legal hammer the issue gives them against Christians, which is why the left supports them as they do.
They naively believe that they will “win” - which means having the law as they wish and *forcing* Christians to comply - and that once the issue is “won” the issue is over with. It is naive because that will be just the beginning, eventually they’ll be on the losing end.
It may seem strange but...I blame the Internet - it is a cultural change catalyst. Then again....all things must come to pass.
Thirty-five years ago, the smaller group pleaded simply for a little "tolerance."
. What has changed in the interim to justify the tsunami of societal dislocations of doing the reverse?
The dysfunctional minority continues to demand a scorched earth policy over a word!
It is madness and a sociopathy which makes the entire process a mockery of an orderly society governed by rational laws.
...also, what about two gay male siblings?
Why not? And if not, can you *really* discriminate against male/female sibling marriage?
Thank you for posting this.
Well, I’m not a dirty liberal mind, but, until you pointed that out, it never occurred to me that siblings living together DOES NOT imply incest (although I never would have thought that thought, until after reading the excerpt).
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.