By: Matt Barber

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most  critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch  both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden  State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural  marriage as between man and wife.

Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the  constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with  overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill  Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for  purposes of federal law.

Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political  issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if  wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core.

The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme  Court will put its official stamp of approval on that cartoonish  contradiction-in-terms labeled “same-sex marriage.” Ultimately, these nine  justices will decide either to recklessly deconstruct, radically redefine and  render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage – or  leave it alone.

They’d better leave it alone.

Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket  fence. They want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to  achieve so-called “marriage equality,” but, rather, to render marriage reality  meaningless.

In a recent column headlined, “The  Revolt of Intelligence Against ‘Marriage Equality,” worldview expert Rick  Pearcey addressed one prominent “gay” activist’s admission that the destruction  of natural marriage signifies the left’s ultimate cultural coup de grâce.

“Masha Gessen, a lesbian and a journalist, spoke frankly about this at a  conference in Sydney, Australia,” he wrote. “‘It’s a no-brainer that we should  have the right to marry,’ she said. ‘But I also think equally that it’s a  no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … ‘Marriage  equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage  extinction.’”

Still, if counterfeit “same-sex marriage” becomes the law of the land, then a  whole lot more freaky deaky will follow before marriage extinction inevitably  occurs.

One of liberals’ favorite Alinskyite defense mechanisms is to ridicule the  opposition if confronted with some irrefutable argument against some hallowed  left-wing delusion.  Such is the tactic employed whenever a thinking person  walks into the room and points out this big ‘ol gay elephant: Once the  government pretends that some vague combination of “love” and “consent” are all  that  a “marriage” requires, then other “arbitrary” and “discriminatory”  parameters beyond a binary male-female prerequisite must also go poof.

That is to say, if the Court magically divines some constitutional right to  “same-sex marriage,” then full “marriage equality” necessarily demands that  polygamous, incestuous and any other equally aberrant nuptial cocktail be  likewise permitted.

It’s a “no-brainer,” right?

To that end, I’m very concerned with the Supreme Court’s recent history of  radically redefining that which cannot be redefined. Though examples abound, I’m  thinking specifically, as concerns the topic at hand, of the Court’s 2003  holding in Lawrence v. Texas.

In Lawrence, the liberal majority, for the first time in history, radically  redefined male-on-male sodomy – hitherto classified “a crime against nature” –  as a “constitutional right.”

In his characteristically brilliant dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia voiced my  concerns better than I can: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult  incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and  obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws  based on moral choices,” he wrote. “Every single one of these laws is called  into question by today’s decision.”

So, if the high court removes one natural marriage parameter for one  special-interest group, then “equal protection under the law” requires that it  remove all natural marriage parameters for all special-interest groups.

Liberty Counsel made these very points in a friend-of-the-court brief filed  with the Supreme Court: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for  recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a  basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous  relationships,” noted the brief. “In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage  is an argument for them as well.”

Another brief filed by 18 state attorneys general voiced similar concerns:  “Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a  woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that  follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage,”  they wrote.

The brief further observed the self-evident “no-brainer” that legitimate  marriage is “optimal for children and society at large.”

It’s all very simple. If anything is marriage, then everything is marriage.  And if everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage at all. “‘Marriage  equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage  extinction.’”

I sincerely hope that the honorable and learned men and women who sit upon  the highest bench in the land can recognize that all of these San  Francisco-style social-engineering games are a deceptive means to a destructive  end.

And it’s not the emotionalist end they’ve dolled-up and dished out. The  left’s fierce push for “gay marriage” has nothing to do with “marriage equality”  and everything to do with “marriage extinction.”

Or, as Ms. Gessen candidly put it: “[I]t’s a no-brainer that the institution  of marriage should not exist.”

I just pray that at least five justices still think it should.

About The Author Matt Barber:
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.