It is unconstitutional to acknowledge SSM as a “right”. It is absurd. It is unnatural and against God’s Laws and against Moral Law-—which comes from Natural Law Theory—the Basis of our Constitution. Right Reason-—means based on Logic, Reason and Science. Biology decries—putting body parts in incompatible holes-—and it can’t sanction such stupid acts and behaviors. It denies natural rights of offspring and destroys the idea of Duty-—inherent in Just Law and the reason for any social contracts.
Their is NO REASONING in laws which find “Rights” is stupid, dysfunctional and unnatural behaviors. All twin studies PROVE that it is learned behavior-—just as the orientation to rape babies or bestiality. We are not born with “urges” to defile body parts and the law (and media) should never glorify this evil act.
Sodomy is evil. They are forcing the laws to conform to other than “the laws of nature” into a pathetical illogical, unscientific laws-—TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. God is the Standard of Right and Wrong in our legal system-—all Jurisprudence proves that and states it in cases throughout our history. The idea of Supra Positive Law is from our Constitution—and it will always state that sodomy is evil and unconstitutional to establish as a “right”. Utter stupidity and evil.
I don’t think you quite understand what’s going on here. You need to grasp how the professor could so calmly and cooly say what he said and not realize how chilling its implications are.
The professor is probably correct in his prediction. This situation will come about because legal positivism triumphed in America beginning with Oliver Wendell Holmes ca. 1900. Legal positism believes that “the law” is simply what people declare it to be, that Law is not limited by perennial principles or natural law principles. That’s why already in the 1980s Robert Bork was borked over “natural law” and Clarence Thomas was almost borked. Believe in unchangeable natural law principles is anathema to legal positivists.
The legal positivists have won the war over the various sexuality issues and they are in control. Believers in natural law and unchangeable principles and inalienable rights are the only remaining threat to their “might makes right”victory. In legal positivism, those in power make laws, and no one can rightly or intelligently or credibly reject such “already-made” laws because they violate natural law.
The professor’s matter-of-factness is illuminating—he just takes it for granted that the shift from heterosexual-only marriage to “marriage is whatever one proclaims it to be” has taken place, it’s a fact, it’s positive (enacted) law or inevitably will be. To claim that marriage has some intrinsic, perennial, natural meaning is meaningless to the legal positivists. They are, pure and simply, might-makes-right believers.
Those who believe otherwise are simply destined to become outlaws. They have no moral “right” to complain and should not expect sympathy as being persecuted for their beliefs. If law and right is whatever we say it is, then those who disagree should accept that as simple fact. If they choose not to accept it, it’s their own fault and they are to blame for their own persecution.
To reply, as you did, with natural law principles is right, yes, indeed. But it’s meaningless to the professor. Really and truly meaningless. We need to grasp this if we are to understand what we are up against.
The professor is in the minority in raw terms. But his views are dominant among the Ruling Class. Really. Truly. And he knows it. Which is why he was so matter-of-fact and unempathetic about it.
THAT is what we are up against.