Roe v Wade 2.0?

Monday, March 25th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Family Values

Share with your friends

How have we fallen so low as nation that we are on the precipice of descending to the moral abyss and on the cusp of mandating chaotic absurdity?

What is at stake this week at the Supreme Court is not just the redefinition of marriage and the fabric of civilization.  It’s whether Americans will continue to have the liberty to recognize and defend the most fundamental building block of civilization.  States are already free to recognize anything they desire to be a marriage.  That has never been negated by DOMA, nor will it be countermanded by any outcome of the two court cases.  On the other hand, we already know that 4 Justices will almost certainly rule that gay marriage is enshrined in our Constitution, to the extent that states and even the people are precluded from retaining the most basic definition of marriage.  All they need is one more vote from either Anthony Kennedy or John Souter Roberts.

By extension, once they are graced with special protection status pursuant to the corrupted interpretation of the 14th Amendment, it will be impossible to forestall the torrent of lawsuits that will ensue to force all individuals and organizations to recognize the full smorgasbord of the homosexual agenda.  So much for personal liberty.  Don’t even begin delving into the liberties of those children who are forced to live with homosexual parents – of no fault of their own.

As we’ve noted before, the definition of marriage does not emanate from the government; rather it is a fixed institution of the civil society.  In its interaction with the civil society, governments recognize the institution of marriage the same way it recognizes any other fixed institution when the need arises.  The Defense of Marriage Act merely protects that definition from the legal assault on states that want to retain marriage as what it was for thousands of years.  It reflects that definition in federal laws as well.  It does not, however, preclude other states from redefining marriage for the purpose of its own laws.  That would have required a Federal Marriage Amendment.  In that sense, if the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA it will be exposing 41 states to lawsuits; it will not be protecting the 9 states that recognize gay marriage.  They already are protected.

The case dealing with proposition 8 is even more important.  If the court upholds the California district court’s ruling against the ballot measure, no state – not even the voters – will have the right to define marriage as a marriage.

Hence, there is a distinct possibility that we can see a decision even more egregious that Roe v Wade.  Irrespective of ones views on the morality or feasibility of a gay relationship being promoted as marriage, there is definitely no constitutional right for that recognition.  An activist decision will take a political issue out of the hands of the people, much like it did with abortion.

Those who really believe that gay marriage is inevitable and so ubiquitously popular should be happy with the status quo.  Each state can decide how it wishes to recognize marriage.  If everyone is really in support of gay marriage, it won’t be long before all the states adopt it.  Why force that definition from the bench and preclude the liberties of those who wish to be protected from lawsuits?

As for Republicans, most of them have already decided to jettison this entire leg from the Reagan conservative stool.  One has to wonder, if by some chance Justice Souter allows the definition of marriage to remain with the states, will Republicans take yes for an answer?