Skip to comments.Massachusetts manhandles marriage
Posted on 11/18/2003 9:26:11 PM PST by kattracks
Are marriages made in heaven, or in courtrooms? Are civil laws that define "the family" man's best effort to codify his understanding of God's law, or are they merely artificial constructions conveniently pieced together by legislatures and judges to suit their passing political and ideological interests?
"Simply put," the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts said this week, "the government creates civil marriage." Therefore, the court concluded, same-sex couples have a "right" to marry under the Massachusetts Constitution which "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens."
The court might as well have said: Simply put, the government creates private property. Therefore, to "affirm the dignity and equality of all individuals" and to prevent the "creation of second-class citizens," we conclude poor people have a right to steal.
Or, the court might have said: Simply put, the government creates the right to life. Therefore, we conclude, people can abort babies and clone and kill human embryos for pharmaceutical research.
Three decades ago, American judges did indeed start abolishing the fundamental right to life. Today we stand on the threshold of man usurping God by creating human beings through cloning and using them as tools to be profited from and discarded.
Now, American judges are starting to abolish the fundamental building block of all human society, the family. Where will we stand three decades hence?
Are these judges laying down fertile soil for the further blossoming of liberty -- as they would have us believe? Or are we headed for a dimmer place, where true human rights are further imperiled, not protected?
In its 4-3 opinion, the Massachusetts court approvingly cited the 6-3 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the June 26 case of Lawrence v. Texas, which declared a "right" to same-sex sodomy. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code," said the Lawrence majority. Tellingly, it was quoting from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 decision that upheld the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which declared abortion a "right."
There is a dark logic to this lineage.
Justice Antonin Scalia spelt it out in his prophetic dissent in Lawrence -- in which he mocked the majority's lame disclaimer that a "right" to same-sex marriage did not necessarily follow from a "right" to same-sex sodomy.
"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that conduct," wrote Scalia, " . . . what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '(t)he liberty protected by the Constitution.'"
Abolishing the right to life paved the way for establishing a right to same-sex sodomy. Establishing a right to same-sex sodomy paved the way for a right to same-sex marriage.
This progression is rooted in the single false premise that the law cannot be founded on God's unchanging rules of morality.
By adopting this false premise, judges reject America's founding principle. Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." His archrival, the Anglican Alexander Hamilton, declared: "The sacred rights of mankind . . . are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." The road to freedom, our Founders believed, runs through legislatures, where elected representatives seek, through constitutionally limited government, to honor God's law in our own.
For the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to reconcile its view of human rights with the view espoused by our Founders, the justices would have to argue that the Creator had endowed man with an inalienable right to same-sex marriage.
That, of course, is transparently absurd. So, instead, the judges labored, as so many American judges have in recent years, to divorce the rules of law from the rules of God.
Yet, if God is not the ultimate author of our law, who will be? Whoever has the power to impose their will on others. This week it was four Massachusetts judges -- who manhandled marriage, denying the truth that it is a match made in heaven. Americans now have no choice but to answer such judges with a constitutional amendment expressly recognizing that marriage is a sacred union solely comprised of one man and one woman.
©2003 Creators Syndicate
Contact Terence Jeffrey | Read Jeffrey's biography
JESUS DEFINES MARRIAGE: "And he answered and said unto them, 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." -from THE BIBLE: Matthew 19:4-6
Finally, a halfway intelligent opponent on FreeRepublic.
Your argument contains a "straw man," does't it? If it were true that the definition of marriage springs from the old testament, then wouldn't cultures that developed without its influence (e.g. those in Asia and the Islamic world) be expected to be more tolerant of homosexuality than western cultures? I mean, if the Bible is just an "artificial" or "arbitrary" influence on our culture and all.
Anyway, congratulations on your well researched, understated, and (superficially) clever argument. Can't wait to read your reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.