Judicial activism undermines tradition marriage.
The liberal judges of America are determined to turn the moral institution of marriage into an immoral institution, so insignificant and undignified any squalid arrangement can fall under it. They of course grant God no authority in defining the institution he authored. The authority belongs to those who didn't author it. "Simply put, the government creates civil marriage," says the Massachusetts Supreme Court as it declared homosexual marriage a right this week. Nor will the judges permit the people to uphold God's definition of marriage. They don't count as "government" in the Massachusetts ruling; only the justices do.
Their judicial tyranny usually takes the same form: seeking to turn what was once a crime into a sacred right, they invoke the most windy and ludicrous rhetoric to inform the people that their own constitution disallows them from writing common sense laws about marriage. Judicial tyranny exists to see to it that the ginned-up right of an immoral individual triumphs over the constitututional right of a moral majority.
The ruling's language is comic. Instead of telling the truth -- which would amount to saying, "We consider the Massachusetts constitution a blank piece of paper we can write anything we want on" -- the judges wrap their bald activism in Oprah-like uplift. "As a public institution and a right of fundamental importance, civil marriage is an evolving paradigm," they say.
What defines this evolving paradigm? Permanence, says the court. "While it is certainly true that many, perhaps most, married couples have children together (assisted or unassisted), it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage," they write.
Never once in the ruling do the judges explain why an institution which they say has no essential connection to the procreation and education of children must be exclusive and permanent. What makes permanence and exclusivity so important to marriage? The traditional answer civil society gave is that children need a stable home in order to become civilized citizens. That was society's compelling interest in promoting the exclusiveness and permanence of marriage. But the Massachusetts court says that answer is no longer permissible.
The Massachusetts court's tribute to the permanence and exclusivity of recreational marriage is also curious next to its assertion declaring no-fault divorce a harmless influence on marriage. "Alarms about the imminent erosion of the 'natural' order of marriage were sounded over the demise of antimiscegenation laws, the expansion of the rights of married women, and the introduction of 'no-fault' divorce. Marriage has survived all of these transformations, and we have no doubt that marriage will continue to be a vibrant and revered institution."
Notice that a ban on homosexual marriage is the same as antimiscgenation laws for the court. The ruling is full of this fallacy. "Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race," it writes. So skin color has the same moral significance as homosexual conduct? The true struggles of minorities are once again used as rhetorical fodder for the fake liberal crusades of the moment.
After saying that marriage isn't for children, the court says, in Hillary-like mode, that homosexual marriage is for the children. Homosexual marriage is indisputably good for them. The judges began their ruling feigning no position on homosexuality -- they quote the Lawrence decision, "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code" -- then proceed to base everything in the ruling on the assumption that homosexual arrangements are as stable and harmless for children as marital unions.
"Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make children of opposite-sex marriages more secure," they write in typical red-herring fashion, completing missing the point that homosexual marriages will harm adoptees moved inside them. Homosexual marriage will mean even more homosexual adoption. Civilization used to consider dropping orphans into a den of decadence a form of child abuse; now, according to the Massachusetts supreme court, it is considered "optimal rearing."
The court says "the Commonwealth affirmatively facilitates bringing children into a family regardless of whether the intended parent is married or unmarried, whether the child is adopted or born into a family, whether assistive technology was used to conceive the child, and whether the parent or her partner is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual."
In other words, the Supreme court of Massachusetts "affirmatively facilitates" the corruption of children.
George Neumayr is managing editor of "The American Spectator."
Read this article on The American Spectator website. Reprinted with permission of the author.