Source: WND.com
By Joseph Farah
In 2003, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia warned the nation what was coming, in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, a case that saw the high court effectively strike down all laws against sodomy in America.
He said the case would lead to something new under the sun – same-sex marriage, as well as polygamy and incest. To say there was raucous scoffing and ridicule from the “progressives” and the media, would be an understatement. At that time, not even the most radical homosexual activists had dreamed up the crazy idea of what they call “marriage equality.”
Never mind that the fix was in from the beginning with the Lawrence case. It was based on a big lie, much like the manufactured Roe v. Wade case 30 years earlier, as Texas Judge Janice Law documented in her overlooked piece of investigative reporting in the book “Sex Appealed.” It demonstrated conclusively the Supreme Court was deliberately misled by homosexual activists in a way that may have even involved the murder of a key witness. Lawrence was a necessary blow to sexual morality in 2003, and the sexual anarchists were not to be denied.
The “progressives” and media were wrong, or, perhaps, they were feigning outrage, and Scalia was right.
In 2013, Scalia was, again, on right and losing side of the Supreme Court’s overturning of a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, a piece of legislation approved overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, hardly a prude when it comes to matters of sexual morality.
Scalia ripped the overturning of the simple, straightforward law meant to define marriage in the U.S. as a union between one man and one woman because the majority declared opponents of same-sex marriage as “enemies of the human race.”
He was right, again.
In overturning DOMA, the majority proclaimed, Scalia pointed out, that even to question the invalidation of the historical definition of marriage was the equivalent of disparaging, injuring, degrading, demeaning and humiliating homosexuals. In other words, anyone who disagreed with the court’s high-handed opinion was a bigot.
He wrote: “I promise you this: The only thing that will ‘confine’ the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.”
“In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us,” Scalia added. “The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.”
Of course, Scalia was subjected to harsh criticism and ridicule, once again, by the “progressives” and media – simply for stating the obvious in the spirit of American self-government and jurisprudence.
It’s probably too late to have any impact on the Supreme Court’s hell-bent determination to overthrow the institution of marriage.
But let me offer three reasons for not doing so – all of which have nothing to do with bigotry and the first of which is actually already leading to bigotry and persecution:
- Jews and Christians believe it is a God thing. Genesis tells us that God created Adam and Eve as a model for the family structure. Jesus affirmed this in Matthew 19:4-6, when He said: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Already, a shocking number of believers have been subjected to fines, loss of employment, loss of businesses and prosecution for simply not participating in same-sex weddings as a matter of religious conviction – and that’s before the Supreme Court releases its inevitable show decision.
- Marriage between one man and one woman works. It is an institution that is tried and tested. It forms the cornerstone of a self-governing society and economy. There is no other model you can point to in the history of the world that more naturally meets the needs of people, civilizes a society and reduces violence and oppression.
- Lastly, and quite apart from the divisive spiritual and economic issues that divide people, there’s the issue of child-rearing. There simply is no good alternative to raising children outside of the one-man, one-woman family. It protects children. It provides male and female role models for them. It’s simple common sense.
But I waste electrons here: The Supreme Court is destined to relegate the ideal institution of marriage to the ash heap of history.
