Ignoring old truths to create a new reality

GavelIt’s easy to win an argument when you invent a new reality. In the case of same-sex marriage, plaintiffs simply argue that a definition of marriage that has existed, culturally and legally, for millennia is an old reality.

Proponents of marriage (i.e., the defendants) have a tough argument to make. We have to demonstrate a higher purpose for marriage. We have to show why it’s culturally sacred, why it serves the common good, why it elevates the lives of men, women and children and why law in a free society should lay out a clear definition of it. We have to explain what marriage is.

Plaintiffs have no such burden to demonstrate. They simply argue equality. How difficult is that? There is no sense of the sacred in marriage for plaintiffs. Only equality is sacred. There is no sense of the common good in marriage for plaintiffs. Equality is the only common good. Only equality elevates men, women and children. And law in a free society has one purpose: Equality.

Carrying such a light intellectual load explains why federal judges, anxious to be on the so-called right side of history, can so casually accept this new reality of same-sex marriage. This new reality explains why a federal judge accepts that “the right to marry” applies to everyone – despite the fact that every legal precedent prior to the invention of this new reality viewed marriage as between a man and woman. Pick the marriage precedent cited by plaintiffs, and every precedent, until now, referenced marriage between a man and woman. The Loving case? A man and woman. Prisoners? A man and woman. Sterile couples? A man and woman.

This new reality describes “marriage equality” as anything that consenting adults agree to – and for any arbitrary reason (e.g., psychological or emotional). What an easy argument! For heaven’s sake, the entire campaign of plaintiffs fits neatly on a small bumper sticker – that is how unsubstantive their 14th Amendment argument really is.

For over 40 years Americans have been browbeaten, then dumbed down, by the mad attempt of sexual progressives to justify any behavior they choose – from killing babies in the womb to homosexuality. “Marriage equality” is the latest and most aggressive attempt by sexual progressives to beat the purpose out of human relationships. And, through a very calculated strategy of infiltrating and controlling academia (including public schools), media and Hollywood, the selfish ones have managed to redefine a purposeful life – purpose as selfishness. The new American dream isn’t a middle-class life of family happiness. The new American dream is anything consenting adults choose to do, whenever and wherever they want to do it.

This new reality is, of course, delusional. It is devoid of truth and human experience. It looks at the “loving and committed relationships” between two men or two women and sees only equality. For instance, it permits a federal judge to see no “substantial or material” differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. When we speak of same-sex relationships, married or not, we speak of homosexuality. This truth is why homosexual activists decried the Bowers decision in 1986 and rejoiced over the Lawrence decision in 2002. There would be no same-sex marriage without the Lawrence decision decriminalizing homosexual sodomy – a prophetic point Justice Antonin Scalia made in his dissent. If any sexual behavior is permissible on the grounds of equality, so too are any social manifestations of that behavior such as same-sex marriage.

Once you jump the shark on the morality of homosexuality, anything related should be permissible. My friend and colleague, state Senator Stuart Reid, has raised this point persistently. He asks the only relevant question in the “gay rights” debate: Is homosexuality no longer immoral? In other words, are the personal and social consequences of homosexual behavior no longer a concern in a free society?

Of course, any answers to those questions are exactly why homosexual activists work so hard and spend so much time and money to create the impression that homosexuality is natural, normal and healthy.

We see this effort to create a new reality all around us these days – homosexuality having paved the way for other progressive social arguments and justifications. The growing acceptance of marijuana is an example. We forget that the reality of legalizing pot has much more to do with an impaired human being and much less about idealized rights and victimless crimes. Every attempt to justify such behavior must focus on delusional images of equality and individual dignity somehow related to the commercialization of marijuana – devoid of any inferences to the purposeless reality of some wasted adult. Faced with the reality of what marijuana does to the human spirit, no wonder potheads feign their cause is about individual rights or advances in medicine.

Same-sex marriage faces this same struggle to create a new reality. Faced with the naked reality of homosexual sodomy, same-sex marriage advocates necessarily cover their behavior with the 14th Amendment.

The division in America over same-sex marriage is a battle royal between old and new realities – and, as with abortion, no judicial decision will settle this division. The fight has nothing to do with animus. It has everything to do with how we view life. What is life’s meaning and how does marriage fit into that construct? What is marriage? What is homosexuality? And, ultimately, what does it mean to be a human being? No judge decides these questions. To create a new reality a judge can only ignore them.