March 29, 2013
‘Marriage Equality’ Spells Marriage Extinction
By Matt Barber
By the end of the week, the U.S. Supreme Court will have heard oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will made the pitch both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.
Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will considered the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law.
Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core.
The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme Court will put its official stamp of approval on that cartoonish contradiction-in-terms labeled “same-sex marriage.” Ultimately, these nine justices will decide either to recklessly deconstruct, radically redefine and render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage or leave it alone.
They would do better to leave it alone.
Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence. They want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality,” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.
In a recent column headlined, “The Revolt of Intelligence Against ‘Marriage Equality,” worldview expert Rick Pearcey addressed one prominent “gay” activist’s admission that the destruction of natural marriage signifies the left’s ultimate cultural coup de grâce.
“Masha Gessen, a lesbian and a journalist, spoke frankly about this at a conference in Sydney, Australia,” he wrote. “It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry,” she said. “But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” “Marriage equality” becomes “marriage elasticity,” with the ultimate goal of “marriage extinction.”
Still, if counterfeit “same-sex marriage” becomes the law of the land, then a whole lot more freaky deaky will follow before marriage extinction inevitably occurs.
One of liberals’ favorite Alinskyite defense mechanisms is to ridicule the opposition if confronted with some irrefutable argument against some hallowed left-wing delusion. Such is the tactic employed whenever a thinking person walks into the room and points out this big ‘ol gay elephant: Once the government pretends that some vague combination of “love” and “consent” are all that a “marriage” requires, then other “arbitrary” and “discriminatory” parameters beyond a binary male-female prerequisite must also go poof.
That is to say, if the Court magically divines some constitutional right to “same-sex marriage,” then full “marriage equality” necessarily demands that polygamous, incestuous, and any other equally aberrant nuptial cocktail be likewise permitted.
It’s a “no-brainer,” right?
To that end, I’m very concerned with the Supreme Court’s recent history of radically redefining that which cannot be redefined. Though examples abound, I’m thinking specifically, as concerns the topic at hand, of the Court’s 2003 holding in Lawrence v. Texas.
In Lawrence, the liberal majority, for the first time in history, radically redefined male-on-male sodomy hitherto classified “a crime against nature” as a “constitutional right.”
In his characteristically brilliant dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia voiced my concerns better than I can: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices,” he wrote. “Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”
So, if the high court removes one natural marriage parameter for one special-interest group, then “equal protection under the law” requires that it remove all natural marriage parameters for all special-interest groups.
Liberty Counsel made these very points in a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships,” noted the brief. “In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well.”
Another brief filed by 18 state attorneys general voiced similar concerns: “Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage,” they wrote.
The brief further observed the self-evident “no-brainer” that legitimate marriage is “optimal for children and society at large.”
It’s all very simple. If anything is marriage, then everything is marriage. And if everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage at all. “‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”
I sincerely hope that the honorable and learned men and women who sit upon the highest bench in the land can recognize that all of these San Francisco-style social-engineering games are a deceptive means to a destructive end.
And it’s not the emotionalist end they’ve dolled-up and dished out. The left’s fierce push for “gay marriage” has nothing to do with “marriage equality” and everything to do with “marriage extinction.”
Or, as Ms. Gessen candidly put it: “[I]t’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”
I just pray that at least five justices still think it should.
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action .
“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God … handling accurately the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15)
You can’t be right and not be truthful, but if you’re truthful, you will always be right.
Smile, it won’t kill you. And if it does, you’ll look a whole lot better at your funeral.
The world is too small for anything but love; time is too short for anything but truth.
We can’t live long enough to justify being sad all the time.
Crying may be beneficial; you don’t pee so much.
Events we can’t control can crush our heart; God’s grace reminds us we have one.
Love those that care for you, pray for those that don’t. Pray for grace to love both.
Spending time with friends who care for you makes them feel better and makes you better.
If you never backstab or gossip about anyone, you’re less likely to be a victim of either.
Treat others like you’ll live forever, for you will.
Make it a point to laugh every day;
Don’t let sadness have its way.
The truth may hurt for a time, but a lie can destroy your credibility forever.
It’s good to go into the world and do well by its standards; it’s far better to go into the world God made and do well by His standards.
Life is too brief for anger; it’s too valuable to waste it on envy.
If you can choose between crying or peeing more, take an extra tinkle.
Truth is truth by being true; opinion can range from truthful to completely false.
What you think is true is opinion; what you know is fact.
Happiness is the yield from knowing the truth and resolving to always live by it.
Grief is something that one must bear alone; happiness should be shared to produce its fullest benefits.
Happiness is a distant destination for the foolish person, an ever-present possession for the wise.
Colleges are no more responsible for the world’s progress than the mill wheel is for making the water run.
There’s no law against happiness, to the dismay of some liberal politicians.
Being loved to an undeserved degree by a beautiful, gentle woman is both humbling and edifying to any sensitive man.
Parents should not depend on schoolteachers to know what’s best for their children; parents are the real experts in subjects of life.
Being generous, honest, and kind, and doing the decent thing are valuables anyone can own.
When you go to do a thing, ask yourself if it’s what you would do if everyone knew you did it, and the reason why.
Truth is its own justifier.
Lies and malice are for losers; love and truth are for winners.
Truth knows no time except now, and forever.