Full Throttle Towards Gomorrah

Well, I suppose it was only a matter of time before the Supreme Court arrogated to itself the right to reinterpret the law as it alone sees fit:
In a blistering rebuke of the Supreme Court decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia said the self-governing power of the people has been eroded. 

"Today's opinion aggrandizes the power of the court to pronounce the law," Scalia wrote in the dissenting opinion. It will have the predictable consequence of diminishing the "power of our people to govern themselves," wrote Scalia, who was joined in his dissent by Justices Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts, while Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate dissenting opinion. 

Scalia described the "assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s representatives in Congress and the executive" as "jaw-dropping." 

"It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere 'primary' in its role," said Scalia. "This image of the court would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter." 

Scalia had particular disdain for fellow Justice Anthony Kennedy's ruling in the 5-4 case, saying it opened the door for a federal law allowing same-sex marriages.

“It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here — when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it,” he wrote.
(Of course, anyone who knows anything about American history knows that this has been going on ever since John Marshall's judgement in Marbury v Madison was handed down.)

Now let me state two important things for the record.

First, government has absolutely no place in deciding who can get married. None whatsoever. These sorts of things are best decided at the most local level possible- local churches. And if freedom of association means anything, it means that churches should be free to marry whoever and whatever they want, provided that they accept the consequences of doing so. That means that if pastors and rabbis and imams want to marry gay couples, fine- just as long as they have no problem with the fact that this usually leads to their congregations abandoning those institutions rather rapidly.

Second, I do not, for one moment, agree with a homosexual lifestyle- but neither do I have any inclination to tell them how to live. Lesbian porn might be fun to watch, but in real life, homosexuality is not "normal"- any straight man who's ever walked down Christopher Street in New York, or through SoHo in London, knows what I'm on about. It has never been accepted as normal in any human society, including ones far more tolerant of unusual sexual mores than current American society. That said, if homosexuals wish to live their lives in peace, as long as they're not bothering me, I don't particularly care who they shack up with or who they wish to spend the rest of their lives with.

What the SCOTUS did with this decision is contrary to both of these basic libertarian tenets. In one stroke, the Court determined that government does have the right to determine the basic definition of marriage- which it does not- and, worse, has the right to overturn the accepted and acceptable definition of marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman before the eyes of the Lord. That is what marriage is, and no amount of legal torturing of the definition can change this basic fact.

Marriage is not a "convenience". It is not a "legal right". It is a commitment, one that should only ever be made with the most serious intent, and it is between one man, and one woman, consecrated before the Lord. That is all, and that is how it will remain no matter what the SCOTUS would like us to believe.

Comments

Popular Posts