Burning Down The House Without Thinking

 

The Supreme Court today effectively disenfranchised the overwhelming majority of citizens in 5 states when it refused to hear appeals in cases involving Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana that had defined marriage as between one man and one woman, leaving intact lower-court rulings striking down those laws.

Rather than actually rule on same sex marriage, the Court simply decided not to take a position, just as they cravenly did with California's Proposition 8.The Court did not even  bother explaining why it refused to hear the appeals.

This pretty much means that the remaining 26 states that still prohibit same sex marriage will have their laws struck down one by one as advocates of same sex marriage shop around for a judge likely to rule that the laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman are illegal.

The fact that all of these existing laws were enacted by a majority of the people in these states means nothing.

Is this the Court's new direction, to disenfranchise people based on political correctness? Are we back to the days of Dred Scott?

It's one thing if the people of a given state wish to change the definition of marriage to include gay couples. It's quite  another to ignore their wishes if they choose not to, especially without even the courtesy of hearing arguments and making a ruling.

And make no mistake about it. This is very much about changing the definition of marriage and not a civil rights issue. To prove this to yourself, ask any gay person of your acquaintance who rabidly favors legalized same sex marriage on the grounds of 'equal rights' if they would be satisfied with law that establishes every one of those rights they claim they don't have but refers to civil unions instead of marriages. You'll invariably get an indignant 'no!' in almost all cases.

This was never about equal rights.It was always about redefining marriage.

Is this good for society? We're told that it is, because it supports the doctrine of equal rights for everyone, will extend the stability of marriage to the homosexual community, and won't have any effect on traditional marriage.

Is this true? Let's take a look.

First of all, rather than supporting the doctrine of equal rights, the way this has been done serves to undermine respect for the Constitution, the Supreme Court and the rule of law. What we saw here was the catering to a powerful group politically at the expense of the majority. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel openly voiced this sentiment  when he talked about gays being " the new Jews" in terms of Democrat fund raising.

In California, for instance, we saw the spectacle of Governor Jerry Brown, then the state's Attorney General refusing to enforce state law or defend it in court after politicians in various jurisdictions began illegally issuing same sex marriage licenses.

And it just took one judge, Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker,an open homosexual and gay marriage advocate to rule Proposition 8 'unconstitutional' after the state Supreme Court declared that it was, and send it to the Supreme Court...who refused to rule on the case on the grounds that the people of California 'lacked standing' to argue their case!

 

There are numerous other examples of similar scenarios across the nation. Not only that, but we've seen increased bullying and intimidation of business owners and clergymen who have declined to service homosexual weddings for reasons of faith...or whom even donate to groups whom support traditional marriage.




 The real motivation of many gay activists in insisting on redefining traditional marriage isn’t equality per se, but forcing the normalization and mainstreaming of their lifestyle by whatever means necessary. The effect of this is already evident, as children in many public schools are already being indoctrinated to believe that LGBT behavior is exactly that, regardless of their religious or ethical beliefs or those of their parents, who are paying for the indoctrination.

 So we're talking about some animals simply being more equal than others, ala' George Orwell's Animal Farm.

There's no way to argue that this sort of tyrannical implementing of the redefinition of marriage strengthens our freedoms or respect for law. Instead, what it has taught people is that lawfare and sleazy tactics matter more than the law, and that is going to set a horrendous precedent.

But will gay marriage affect traditional marriage? Of course it will. And the reasons may surprise you.

The first effect of diluting marriage - for that is exactly what 'expanding' the definition of marriage amounts to - will be to encourage all sorts of variations to dilute it even further. Same sex marriage is certain to lead to a slippery slope of legalized polygamy and mainstreaming of the euphemism favored by a number of well established, mainstream polygamy advocates here in the US, "polyamory" (group marriage).

University of North Carolina Professor Mim Chapman's "What Does Polyamory Look Like" is regarded as one of the 'bibles' of the movement, along with Deborah Anapol's "Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits". And the movement already has a flagship magazine in Loving More...which is actually supported by the taxpayers, believe it or not.

Once you do a little research, you find out that a lot of the advocates for diluting traditional marriage tend to be..wait for it..lawyers, especially family law lawyers,including the late Paula Ettelbrick who taught law at the University of Michigan, New York University, Barnard, and Columbia, and was the executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission as well as New York City's Stonewall Community Foundation; Emory University law professor Martha Fineman, who is also an affilited scholar with the ultra-Left Center For American Progress; University of Maryland Carole Hanan Sibel; Research Professor of Law Martha Ertman; Mary Anne Case, Arnold I. Shure Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School; Judith Stacey, the Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and Sociology at NYU and the author of "Unhitched" essentially an advocacy book for 'non-traditional marriage' and David Chambers, a professor of law at the University of Michigan.

And surprise! A number of these academics actually champion the radical remaking and even the dissolution of traditional marriage as an institution in favor of a series of 'contractual' relationships, and are quite open about championing same sex marriage as a entryway towards the abolishing of traditional marriage as we now know it.

 

It‘s obvious why a number of the most outspoken advocates of same sex marriage are lawyers. After all, they're the ones who will be pocketing handsome fees for a whole new round of divorces, custody battles and the drawing and redrawing of marital 'contracts' once same sex marriage, polygamy and polyamory become the law of the land.


Another group that has been virtually silent about homosexual marriage even though many of them are violently opposed to it are Islamist organizations like CAIR, The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) And The Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC). They see this as a spear point for legalizing the polygamy Islam allows as well as other aspects of sharia law. They also see it as a selling point to proselytize for Islam to people whom may not be  particularly affiliated religiously, but retain traditional attitudes towards homosexuality.

 Like it or not, traditional monogamous marriage between one man and one woman is one of the foundations of western society, as well as the preferred environment for raising children as all serious research on the subject shows. That's why it's lasted as long as it has. Diluting marriage and diminishing  that foundation  will almost certainly  lead to a number of bad effects on our society, most of which can already be seen in Europe.

  Much of Europe has had same sex marriage for a while now, and de facto legal polygamy is already a fact there because of the huge influx of Muslim immigrants. Parts of Europe even have a problem with bestiality in the form of animal prostitution that they're unable to eliminate because of their existing laws on sex and marriage. And why not? How can one discriminate legally between 'lifestyle choices'?

The clear trend there since same sex marriage became legal is for less marriage, drastically lower birthrates, and a vastly greater amount of out of wedlock births. In order to make a society like that work even slightly, you need a vast and well-funded welfare state. Again looking at Europe as an example, not only doesn't such a state work if you have massive immigration, but it freezes social and financial mobility and eventually topples under its own weight into bankruptcy once you run out of other people's money to spend.While redefining marriage isn't the only thing shoving us in that direction, it's going to be an important part of it.

What consenting adults do sexually in the privacy of their own homes is of no interest to me. But  it's pretty clear to me that redefining marriage like this, especially given the way it's being done  is going to have big picture consequences for Western society that will only become apparent as time passes.If you doubt this, do a little research yourself about what happened to other societies that legalized same sex marriage and normalized such relationships.

We're burning down our house it took centuries to build..without thinking.