In Only 7 Years, We’ve Gone from Simply Accepting Homosexuality to Finding a Right to Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S. Constitution
Justice Antonin Scalia warned this would happen when he wrote his dissent in the Lawrence v Texas case:
We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991), that Indiana’s public indecency statute furthered “a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality,” … 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. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.” …
And he was exactly correct, despite the outcries from the GLBT movement at the time who called him a scaremonger and stated they had no interest in pushing same-sex marriage. Plain and simple, they lied. This has been their goal all along… not just to gain acceptance, but to push their lifestyle on the nation and force acceptance and promotion of their lifestyle in every aspect of our culture, from same-sex marriage to adoption to teaching the homosexual lifestyle in public schools to forcing acceptance in the religious community.
That said, this is a good comment (with which I agree completely) left in response to this post at AoSHQ:
“Similarly, a government cannot mandate what sort of sex is legal and what sex is illegal.”
That’s simply wrong as a matter of fact — as well as of policy. The law can and should prohibit many kinds of sexual activity. The last time I checked, adultery, for example, was still a crime in Maryland, Virginia, and D.C.
Incest, bestiality, rape, and other forms of sexual abuse are all still illegal (at least this week).
Here’s the problem with our contemporary approach to homosexuality: our culture cannot support a policy of toleration — toleration meaning leaving alone what we strongly disagree with. In our culture, it seems, it’s either complete prohibition or total acceptance. (It reminds me a bit of R.J. Neuhaus’s dictum: where orthodoxy is made optional, it will eventually be proscribed.)
This is how we go, in a matter of a few years, from a situation where half the states outlaw sodomy to a federal judge saying the Constitution not only permits but actually requires SSM.
Here are the reasons I oppose any public recognition of homosexuality:
(1) It’s unhealthy. This has been documented a thousand times over. The AIDS crisis was driven by an ocean of unsafe homosexual practices. But instead of AIDS ushering in a new Victorian era, as a sensible society would have had it, instead we’ve had a further weakening of sexual morality.
(2) Homosexuality is not a purely biological or genetic phenomenon. Twin studies have proven that (if it were purely genetic, then all identical twins would share the same sexuality — but they don’t). That means that there is a huge cultural component to it. If the culture supports it, then there will be more of it. Young people who are in an unsteady state with regard to their sexuality can very easily be tipped on to the wrong side.
(3) Homosexuality as a political movement has in the last few years made it its goals to attack the bedrock institutions of society: marriage and the military, the very institutions that protect women and children on the one hand and the nation on the other. Excuse me if I oppose those who threaten me and mine.
(4) Public acceptance of homosexuality and SSM permanently alters the understanding of marriage as the primary means of reconciling the sexes and of providing for the orderly procreation of children. I don’t say that homosexuals led on this front: the acceptance of contraception, abortion, and divorce led the way, but SSM seals the deal. There’s no going back from that change–short of apocalypse now.
(5) Lastly, there is a theological point: Acceptance of open homosexuality and SSM is basically a proclamation of atheism. It is a repudiation of all traditional religious belief about the distinctive and complementary nature of the sexes and about the universal moral law — the law of nature and of nature’s God. It is the establishment of unbelief and the disenfranchisement of the majority of religious believers in this country. Won’t I now be a thought criminal when I teach my children that homosexuality is wrong and SSM is a tragedy and a fiction?
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at August 20, 2010 04:34 PM
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.