State of chaos
It’s difficult to wade through all the ramifications of the California Supreme Court decision that allows gay marriages to go forward starting later this month, though the issue is up for a vote again in November and may be nullified by the voters in California (whose former vote on this was cast aside by those activist judges in this decision)…..
But he guys at NRO Bench Memos have been knocking out some pithy posts that capture the essence of the situation on the Left Coast.
[Predictable arrogance] seems the best explanation for the unseemly haste with which the California Supreme Court, by the same 4-3 vote by which it cast aside one of the most basic principles of Western civilization and one of the most basic facts of human nature, has now denied the petition for a stay of its ruling until the November election, when the voters of the state have a chance to reassert that fact and that principle that persons of the same sex do not marry. This means that as of Tuesday morning, June 17, county clerks in California will begin to issue marriage licenses for “Partner A” and “Partner B” rather than for “husband” and “wife.”
First Things sizes up this sign of the times.
We’re rapidly reaching the point where the spirit of postmodern, nonjudgmental moral minimalism now permits a man to have many wives–or a husband–if that’s what he prefers. Polling shows that among younger Americans the Yuck Factor has succumbed to the Seinfeld Sentiment: “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!â€
But here’s what’s wrong with that, only for beginners…
The result is the opposite of the libertarian dream of freedom. As [author Douglas] Farrow observes, with gay marriage we are giving over the family to the state to define according to the needs of the moment. The upshot, he worries, will be a dangerous increase in the power of the state to define our lives in other realms once thought sacrosanct. “Remove religiously motivated restrictions on marriage,†he writes, “and it is much easier to remove religiously motivated restrictions on human behavior in general, and on the state’s power to order human society as it sees fit.†The libertarian dream turns into the totalitarian nightmare. Who can or cannot be a spouse? That’s for the state to decide. To whom do children belong? It’s up to the state to assign parents as its social workers and judges think best.
That’s the logical progression of these decisions. If only logic and reason were applied in the decision making process.
0 Comment
Who wants to be “Partner B?” Or even, “Partner C and D?” Doesn’t it seem a logical progression to forego any labels whatsoever?
The media plays an active role in the Yuck Factor. The first time he saw two men kissing on Primetime TV, he was shocked, but the second, third and fourth times, he just got tired of being shocked, and shrugged it off. I couldn’t blame him…it’s an emotional roller coaster to be shocked over and over.
Does anyone else worry about the fact that eventually – it may take 10 years or maybe 20 years- if this line of reasoning roars across the country it will begin a real persecution of the Catholic Church and other bible based Christian churches.
A few years ago, I called Senator Barbara Boxer’s office up because a vote on this issue was in the Senate. I mentioned to the person on the phone that I believed that granting homosexual marriage could possibly interfere with the freedom of Religion rights in the Constitution. That quite possibly priests/ministers would eventually be told that they were required to marry homosexuals. The woman on the phone told me that yes, the equal protection clause of the Constitution did trump the Religious freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. Remember for these people this issue is similar to the civil rights movement.
My husband says I am being a bit alarmist and that this won’t happen – but most of what I see happening today was unthinkable when I was a child.