Tuesday, February 10, 2015

The farce of 'gay marriage'

As the U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to cram a redefinition of marriage into the Constitution and down the nation's collective throat, it seems a good time to dust off a post I wrote 3-and-a-half years ago. It still reads well.

A side-point: it's fascinating to see all this happening with the approving roars of so-called "progressives"; who we can be sure will, a day earlier or later, just as full-throatedly denounce the Supreme Court as a fascist threat to our freedom. Well, which is it, progressives?

A thought occurred to me: perhaps we should propose a new amendment to the Constitution that would do the following:

a) Abolish Congress.
b) Make membership in the U.S. Supreme Court elected rather than appointed.
c) Sort membership in the High Court into two sub-courts: one in which members are chosen by state; the other by population.
d) Increase the total size of the U.S. Supreme Court to 100 state representatives and 435 population-representatives.

No, I'm not serious; because Congress is hardly more trustworthy with our liberties. And an astute observer might have noticed that I, too, will alternate between denouncing the High Court and applauding it. The difference between me and so-called "progressives" is that if I had my way, almost no ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court would matter to almost anyone at all. It's the great expansion of government's size and reach that creates the very threat the progressives inconsistently complain about; when it turns on them, they can blame no one but themselves.

Okay, back to the immediate question: the likely, imminent new coercion from the U.S. Supreme Court.*

I think it's pretty important for those of us who want to be Catholic and be in sync with the Faith to gird ourselves. It's going to be very difficult.

Once the High Court so rules, then all of us who disagree become bigots. The accusation is pretty promiscuously spread around even now. It will become a tidal wave. That viewpoint will become standard; expect it to be written into textbooks. Your children in school will be told, they are bigots if they believe that marriage is only man-woman.

Raise your hands if you like being called a bigot?

Gird yourself. The natural thing to do in this instance is to trim. A lot of people will bend. It has always been thus. Prepare to be discouraged. Prepare to be shocked.

But be patient; and keep your hope in Jesus Christ, not in anything else.

Because this move is utterly incoherent, it's incoherence will become manifest as we go forward. What happens if you take the lug-nuts off your wheels? The wheels come off; and the wheels will come off of this newly minted notion of "marriage" and "family" that has been cobbled together by our preening politicians and jurists.

Will it be wrong to enjoy the spectacle -- surely not too many years away -- as the polyamorists line up for their day in court? What do you think?

I don't mean to make light of this. It's not good. But I do very much mean to heap scorn on the notion that this is either some sort of enlightened moment or blow struck for justice; or that it has any inevitability about it. It is a farce; a very harmful farce; but a farce nonetheless.

* I have some--not much--hope that the High Court will draw back from the abyss. My hope is founded on something real: the unpredictability of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

5 comments:

northernhermit said...

"Raise your hands if you like being called a bigot?": A lot of us have already been called this, and traditional Catholics are the one religion that the US government condones discrimination against. I often wonder if the government should just get out of the marriage business all together. At least then it would not be a state mandated immorality, but I think our elected liberals fear the loss of taxes and votes more than the loss of their soul

Fr Martin Fox said...

"I often wonder if the government should just get out of the marriage business all together."

I might go for that. If you get married, or claim to be married, you execute some sort of standard legal contract, which specifies the claims your partner(s) has(have) on you, as well as what is due any children you claim as yours.

It will still be madness, and it won't be much of an improvement, but it may prevent some of the worse harassment coming down the pike.

Nick D said...

You're more optimistic than I am, Father. I think the ruling will be 6-3 towards overturning the state laws, with Scalia, Thomas, and either Alito or Roberts dissenting.

As to your previous comment suggesting that "the government should just get out of the marriage business all together," if SCOTUS rules against these states, then the Church certainly should (the civil aspect of it, at least.)

ndspinelli said...

All civilizations that have embraced depravity have crumbled.

Pat said...

How does this hurt me?

There are 10 houses on my street, all filled with married couples.
In 4 of those houses are straight couples, unrelated by blood, and all white.
There's an interracial married couple in the 5th house, an inter-generational couple in the 6th house, a married gay couple in the 7th house, married cousins in the 8th house and 9 & 10 are occupied by married couples who have several previous divorces among them.

My State certified all those marriages although my religion would never solemnize half of those marriages. So, what are we proposing to do about the 7th house that we're not doing about the other ones and why?