Last week’s twin rulings by the states of Georgia and New York
against homosexual marriage caused quite a stir. The top courts in
both states found that laws specifying marriage as between one man
and one woman are constitutional.
As even the New York Times was forced to report, “[T]he Court of Appeals found that the
state’s definition of marriage as a union between a man and a
woman, enacted more than a century ago, could have a rational
basis, and that it was up to the State Legislature, not the courts,
to decide whether it should be changed.”
This concept — that the people and not the courts should decide
what is in their best interests — coming as it did from a judicial
body in a state as liberal as New York, was quite a surprise. It
put the brakes, at least temporarily, on the ugly and
unconstitutional assumption that many modern jurists have proffered
in recent years: that they know better than their inferiors; our
legislative bodies and those who elect them.
On the other hand, New York Court of Appeals Chief Justice
Janice Kaye believes the court failed in its sacred duty to
legislate and execute laws, as she wrote in her dissent: “It is uniquely the function
of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed
by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their
violation.” (Emphasis mine.)
This notion would come as a surprise to those who founded this
country intending that the judiciary be the weakest of the three
branches of our government; so much so that Article III of our
Constitution allows Congress to determine both its scope and
size.
Still, the two gay marriage-busting decisions brought forth the
expected hue and cry from the usual suspects with the usual
arguments. They ask: How does granting “equal” rights to
homosexuals threaten traditional marriage? How can it harm our
culture and society? How does that affect our “families”? These
questions deserve hard, honest answers; ones that must not be
squeezed through the politically correct wringer.
Like it or not, although the right to practice any religion is
guaranteed by our Constitution, this country was and is based on
Judeo-Christian beliefs; one of which is that homosexuality is a
sin against man and God and therefore, like most sins, harmful to
society. Christianity pre-supposes that man will sin but not that
the state should codify it.
Scoff at religion if you must, but try and deny that the best
model for raising children is in a traditional household with one
mom and one dad. When this man and woman marry for love and become
“one flesh” they are fulfilling God’s natural plan — whether or
not they are blessed with children — in a way that is impossible
for homosexuals.
Most proponents of gay marriage are cut from the same cloth as
those that succeeded in promoting the sexual revolution — begun in
the 1950s by folks like Alfred Kinsey and Hugh Hefner — which
surged over this nation like a tidal wave leaving our culture in
its wake. The message was clear: all and any form of sexual
activity is okay and even healthy. “Love” the one you’re with, even
if you’re all alone.
Kinsey’s report reduced human sexuality to that of brutish
beasts; unrestrained by passe marriage vows, more like animals than
civilized men. Hefner packaged the concept that separated sexual
pleasure from love and marriage, and sold it as entertainment. It
is no coincidence that when he launched his empire, its symbol was
a rabbit.
The results? The quest for sexual “freedom” has enslaved many
millions; women who have become the very sex objects they despised,
men who are in the clutches of pornography addiction, and children
who are now the sexual targets of the monsters created by the
free-love Frankenstein.
Thanks to the great liberation of the sexual act from religious,
marital love, we have mothers killing their unborn children,
fathers abandoning many who survive, sexually-transmitted diseases
and now, a movement telling us that more rampant, procreation-less
sex should be recognized as marriage.
Promoters of gay marriage are fond of touting the current
divorce rate in defense of their claim that their particular idea
of matrimony couldn’t tarnish it any further. As if
sex-for-its-own-sake is the cure for the dissolution of marriage
instead of one of its root causes.
The American people, buoyed by our founding documents, will
always support the rights of everyone in this country — including
homosexuals — without regard to race, color or creed. The idea
that a group’s preferred sexual proclivities should qualify for
special rights is one that most Americans are and should be
against.
As it stands now, 45 states either have laws or amendments to
their constitutions banning gay marriage as a reflection of the
people’s will. The truth is, most of us prefer the United States of
America to Sodom and Gomorrah.
