Truth, Marriage, and the American Constitution
Supporters of so-called “gay
marriage” often try to equate their cause to that of the civil rights era case
that actually established marriage equality. In Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court held that under the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, States cannot ban interracial
marriage. Loving affirmed the fundamental constitutional right of a man and
woman to marry because “[m]arriage [between a man and a woman] is . . .
fundamental to our very existence and survival,” as the Supreme Court
previously held in Skinner v. Oklahoma. But marriage redefinition activists irrationally and
unconstitutionally attempt to extend Loving to create a new federal
right to marry without any qualification whatsoever. Loving emphasized
the importance of marriage to all Americans, in the true sense of the word. It
did not redefine the word. If one redefines “marriage” to mean whatever anyone
wants it to mean, it has no definition and is no longer useful as a bearer of
meaning.
Loving did not require this destruction of marriage. It did not
hold that if prohibited conduct is defined by reference to a proclivity, then
that prohibition violates the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no fundamental
right for certain individuals to call their alternative arrangements “marriage”
-- and to compel others who disagree to not only assent to, but contribute to,
the support of that redefined institution. Indeed, such coercion would violate
the fundamental right of marriage for those who support marriage’s true
meaning. Loving simply does not support the fashionable but mindless
“marriage equality” slogan, which is ultimately standardless and renders
marriage equally meaningless for all.
The inventors of this proposed new
“right” urge the Supreme Court to discard the long-established and proper
limits on marriage under State law and, acting as a super-legislature, replace
the traditional and rational definition of marriage with one that has no
discernible limits. If “marriage” means fulfilling one’s personal choices
regarding intimacy, as they insist, it is difficult to see how States could
regulate marriage on any basis. If personal autonomy is the essence of
marriage, then not only gender, but also number, familial relationship, and
even species are insupportable limits on that principle, and they all will
fall. For example, if the Court requires a redefinition of marriage according
to sexual preference because not doing so is discriminatory, then it would be
furthering discrimination by not also allowing bisexual individuals to marry
two spouses of opposite sexes in order to fulfill their desired union for
companionship. This initial rejection of marriage that they propose is not just
a slippery slope -- it is a bottomless pit.
Yet these “progressives” essentially
claim that their proposed redefinition improves marriage by adding a necessary
but currently lacking element of “equality” to it. This is certainly a clever
ploy, for who can oppose equality? But that is all that it is, a ploy. It
is not a valid point.
Marriage already has all the
equality it can contain without destruction of its meaning, purpose, and proper
boundaries. Any legally competent man can marry any legally competent woman,
regardless of his or the woman’s race, religion, national origin, or even
sexual preference, and vice versa. The problem they claim that the Court must
resolve is one that does not exist. True marriage equality already
exists.
What these marriage redefinition
activists actually seek is not equality but instead a self-indulgent form of
inclusiveness that demands acceptance, and indeed support, of a wide variety of
sexual conduct that society has no interest in supporting and no obligation to
support. And once this “inclusiveness” camel gets its nose in the marriage
tent, marriage will not be a better tent; it will be trampled and destroyed.
The marriage redefinition lobby argues that they can take our social body’s
fundamental building block, remake it in their own amorphous image, and society
will be healthier. They essentially argue they can remove the walls from our
cells, place them back in the body, and the body will be healthier. It will
not. Cells without walls will die, and with them so does the body.
Though they do not openly admit it,
these “progressives” proffer a subjective view of the reality of marriage. But
a subjective view of reality has as many realities as it has subjects. If
everyone can define what marriage means to him or her, and the State must
accede to that view, where will that lead us? What will the state of our
society then be? Will it be the Utopia of freedom and growth that the
“progressives” imply, or will it degenerate into chaos? Is that a chance that
the Supreme Court is rightfully empowered to take, or is such a choice reserved
to the people under Article V’s constitutional amendment provision?
Let us spell out the truth about
this subjectivist argument as simply as we can. If someone wants to go bowling,
they can go to a bowling alley with whoever they choose -- a friend of the same
or opposite gender, or five such friends, or a child (or their favorite pet,
perhaps, in a more “enlightened” establishment). And they can all bowl
together. But if that same entourage goes into a bowling alley and demands
that they be permitted to “bowl” using pogo sticks, hula hoops, parasols, and
buckets and buckets of whipped cream -- but no balls or pins, because those
offend their sensibilities -- the proprietor will be completely justified in
denying that request. He will not be denying them their fundamental right to
bowl. He will not be unfairly discriminating against them or treating them
like second-class citizens. He will not be manifesting “hate.” He will merely
be telling them the truth: What they want to do is their business, but it’s not
bowling. And if the truth offends their sensibilities, that is their problem,
not his. They simply have no cause of action against him.
The LGBTQ lobby’s plight is no
different. They all have the fundamental right to marry. No one is denying them
that. But they do not have the right to tell the rest of the country that we
must recognize their non-marital relationships to be the same as marriage. They
are not. They may be dissatisfied with the fact that their view of
marriage does not comport with reality, but if their dissatisfaction is to be
remedied, it is their view -- or some other aspect of their behavior -- that
must change, not reality.
Marriage equality already exists –
Loving cleared up the last impediment to its enforcement. To protect
marriage from those who would destroy its true meaning, the Supreme Court must
adhere to its mandate to interpret the Constitution and avoid the temptation to
unlawfully rewrite it in the name of “progress”.
On behalf of a coalition of over
25,000 African-American churches and ministries, Kane, Mersino, and Wagner
authored an Amicus brief in the marriage cases currently pending before the
Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment