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.

This entry was posted in Law, Marriage and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • theshadow

    “Faced with the naked reality of homosexual sodomy … they cover their behavior”? Paul, trying to conjure up images of “unnatural” sex in the sensitive minds of your readers is a new low, even for you. And to try to insinuate that LGBT people themselves feel shame over their sex is even lower. As usual, you string together a bunch of words and drop a few disturbing images, even say a few downright mean things (that homosexuality is not natural, normal, or healthy), but your words do not add up to add up to a coherent argument. You’re just preaching fear to your own choir.

    • thinkr2

      Let’s skip the morality for a minute and just address the health aspect of sodomy, which is usually what we are talking about.

      Medical and mortality statistics show that sodomy and it’s associated behaviors have not only high correlation with avoidable illness and premature death, but causation is usually easy to establish. In fact, as just one example, many people like nurses and hemophiliacs have contracted HIV through blood transfusions and accidental exposure to blood, but never got AIDS because they did not engage in activities common to homosexuals that place additional stress on the immune system. HIV is not selective, but AIDS is self-selected.

      The basic principles of evolution would lead to the conclusion that activities that not only inhibit the perpetuation of the species but also weaken existing members of the species and shorten their lifetimes are counter-productive and therefore neither healthy nor natural.

  • nightbeacon

    Conversely, I can argue “Ignoring the new reality to bolster the failed paradigm”. See also: The world is flat.

    • thinkr2

      Acceptance of any particular dogma even by a majority does not make it a ‘reality’ with moral force or authority let alone scientific veracity.

      See: Slavery in the antebellum South AND in parts of Africa past AND present.

      You too will someday have the pleasure of meeting God, as will all of us. Some of us are trying to make that meeting as pleasant as possible. Some seem bent on making it as miserable as they can.

      • nightbeacon

        You don’t have any more insight as to what constitutes “reality” than I do. If you need to impose human hierarchy/patriarchal models in order to understand yours, please do. “Pleasant” and “miserable’ are subjective terms. Even if your god model is correct, I do not for one instant believe meeting s/he/it is going to be anything that can be described in very limited human emotional terms. I welcome it, regardless of your judgement as to what emotional value I’ll be experiencing.

        • thinkr2

          I made no “judgement as to what emotional value [you] will be experiencing.” I have no idea what you choose to do, so I don’t assume anything about you.

          I only pointed out that you, like all of us, will get to meet God some day. At that point each of us will realize that His ‘reality’ is the only one that matters.

  • Greebo

    Homosexuality has never been immoral. Those who declared otherwise, were simply wrong.
    Even conservatives know that:
    “Because I’m a conservative, I support gay marriage.”
    David Cameron, British Prime Minister.

    • thinkr2

      “Homosexuality has never been immoral.” Really?

      I know you don’t want to believe it, but you will someday have a chance to tell
      that to God. And He won’t have to “cast you out”, though He might point
      to the door. You will gladly leave His realm of light and peace to
      join with other selfish people whose companionship does not constantly
      remind you of “what I could have become.”

      You will know then that you missed your chance for so much more.

      • Greebo

        Here on earth, in the realm of secular law, your God has no standing. He doesn’t even have the vote.
        So please leave me alone with your God.

        • thinkr2

          He’s your God, too. But you will find that out on your own. That’s perhaps his most important characteristic: We all get to choose for ourselves. We just don’t get to choose the consequences.

          Enjoy yourself while you can.