The Supreme Court is wrong. It's pretty simple. They're wrong. They've been wrong many times in the past, and seem to be wrong with an increasing regularity these days.
They were wrong yesterday when they announced that the federal government can offer Obamacare subsidies even though the law expressly gives that power to the states. They were wrong two years ago when they decided that the federal government has the right to force American citizens to buy a product from an insurance company. They were wrong 40 years ago when they said mothers have a constitutional right to murder their children. And they were wrong today when they took out their magical magnifying glass and found, perhaps transcribed in microscopic code on the fibers of the Constitution, a mysterious entitlement to homosexual marriage.
[sharequote align="center"]They were wrong, but our culture doesn't care because it has stopped asking leaders to be right.[/sharequote]
They were wrong, but our culture doesn't care because it long ago stopped asking its leaders to be right. And it certainly doesn't care about the law, which is why liberals have been able to make the Constitution into an indecipherable mystic scroll that morphs to accommodate the fashionable ideologies of the day. As such, it is dead. It might as well not exist.
So, despite the fact that neither marriage nor homosexuals are explicitly or implicitly or actually or metaphorically or literally mentioned in the Constitution, our nation will now celebrate as a few con artists in black robes pretend all that stuff is in there anyway. Then again, they hardly even pretended this time. The majority opinion legalizing gay marriage across the country and undoing the will of the people and their elected representatives in 14 states reads like a lengthy Facebook post written by a 17-year-old. It says a lot of happy, bubbly, hollow things about how gay people love each other and so on, but it barely attempts to offer anything resembling a constitutional defense or a coherent thought.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that gay marriage allows two homosexuals to "find a life they could not find alone." Then he broke out his acoustic guitar and sang a rousing rendition of "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing."
This is an embarrassment. Our nation's highest court has just upended the institution of marriage, dismantled the rule of law, undermined the will of the people, and canceled out the legislative process entirely, and did so based on the reasoning that gay people want to find a life together. Maybe they do, but what in the hell does that have to do with the Constitution? And how was anyone being denied a "life together" simply because marriage has a definition?
From left, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan await the start of President Barack Obama's State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, Feb. 12, 2013. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Kennedy went further by bemoaning the fact that traditional marriage condemns gay people to "loneliness." Is this man a Supreme Court justice or Barney the dinosaur? If he's concerned about lonely people, he can, by all means, go and be their friends. But the Constitution was not written to ensure that people aren't lonely. Indeed, the loneliness or unloneliness of an individual is not a legal issue, and it's incredibly nauseating that I even have to explain that.
The majority opinion even cites a couple's need for "intimacy and spirituality" as a reasoning to decree gay marriage across the land. But since when is intimacy and spirituality a judicial matter? Liberals constantly drone on about wanting to "get the government out of their bedroom," yet here they are, weeping tears of joy as five old people in black robes make legal decisions based on a human's need for romance. How far does this go? Next will they find that my wife has a constitutional right to a bouquet of roses and a spontaneous slow dance on the beach at sunset?
It's laughable. It's disgraceful. It makes no sense at all, and barely tries to.
Yet liberals gloat because, though shameful and incomprehensible, the Supreme Court's ruling at least delivers them a victory they can brag about on Twitter.
But whatever the Supreme Court says, the Truth remains the same: There is no right to gay marriage. There is no gay marriage. It's not real. It's not possible.
It's make-believe. It means nothing.
You might say it doesn't matter now because the Supreme Beings have spoken, but I happen to think that Truth always matters. Despite what any judge says; despite the prevailing opinion; despite the surveys and polls and consensuses; the Truth still matters. If it doesn't, then nothing matters and life is pointless. Your existence has no meaning if the Truth is irrelevant. There is no reason for you to be on this planet if there is no Truth worth fighting for.
And the Truth is that, due to the fundamental nature of human rights, marriage, and homosexuality, a union between two homosexuals is not, has never been, and will never be a legitimate marriage.
What Is a Right?
We throw this term around like confetti these days, but I doubt the average liberal can define it. He thinks a right is some sort of cosmic force that guarantees him access to whatever he happens to want. He wants a phone, therefore he has a right to it. He wants a college education, therefore he has a right to it. He wants $15 an hour to sprinkle salt on fries at Wendy's, therefore he has a right to it. He wants to have his romantic relationship with another man officially recognized by the State as a "marriage," therefore he has a right to it. And so on.
This is all childish nonsense, of course. It's a conception of human rights about as mature and intelligent as a toddler throwing a tantrum in the supermarket because his mommy won't let him have any Skittles.
[sharequote align="center"]Liberals think a right is some sort of cosmic force that guarantees them whatever they want.[/sharequote]
If our Founding Fathers meant only to establish a nation on these kinds of "rights" when they revolted against the king, they should have been spanked and sent to bed without any supper and that should have been the end of it. You can't build a country on the idea that people have a right to whatever they want simply because they want it. That might be the core principles motivating kindergartners and the Democratic Party, but these are not the rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Constitutional rights are the kind endowed in us by the Creator. Rights inherent in our humanity by virtue of the fact that we are created by the Divine Force. God bestows in us a certain dignity, and no man should attempt to deprive us of it. Those are human rights.
You can't seriously argue that "traditional" marriage deprives a gay man of his dignity. Marriage is an institution. As such, it has certain parameters and lines of distinction. The existence of those lines does not constitute an imposition on, or persecution of, those outside of it. It merely distinguishes one thing from another, that's all.
The union between two men is one thing, the union between a man and a woman is another. This is not tyranny; it's just common sense. Besides, with this new version of marriage, lines of distinction are still drawn. Still, two siblings cannot marry, two dogs cannot marry, a man and a tree cannot marry, a man and a child cannot marry, a man and an omelet cannot marry. Despite our spectacularly progressive attitudes, we still claim that marriage is something, and as long as we say that it is something, we say that it is not something else. What gives us the right to exclude the people who continue to fall outside of the new definition?
Or might we say that to destroy the definition of marriage ultimately excludes the whole world of it, and this is, in the end, the greatest indignity of all?
What Is Marriage?
As we've seen, the Supreme Court, in its destruction of the old definition of marriage, arbitrarily established a new one. Kennedy described marriage as a loving bond between two people, but never explained why he, the Great Oracle, deigned to keep it limited to two people. Or why it has to be loving. Or why it has to be a bond.
Why can't marriage be a relaxed and indifferent arrangement between six people? Why can't it be a hateful contract between four adults, one cat and a block of cheese? Why can't it be anything I want it to be?
This what I can't stand about progressivism (well, one of the many things). It doesn't even have the guts or intelligence to come up with new ideas. It just takes bits of the old idea, removes the parts that seem challenging and inconvenient, and then randomly asserts that everyone should accept their weird, dismembered version of things.
For thousands of years, marriage was considered a loving bond precisely because it was a union between a man and a woman. This needed to be a bond of love and sacrifice because this union stood as the foundation for the family, which is itself the foundation of human civilization. But to say that marriage is not fundamentally a union between a man and a woman is to say that it is not fundamentally the foundation for the family, which means that it need not be a monogamous or loving bond between two individuals.
In other words, the proponents of the "old" (read: "real") iteration of marriage had a solid, distinctive, purposeful reason behind both the definition of the institution and the characteristics associated with it. Once you've removed the purpose (to create families), you have absolutely no reason to retain any of the defining features that sprang forth from that purpose.
Marriage has always been and always will be a union between man and woman. Unlike gay "marriage," this isn't arbitrary. It isn’t fueled by hate, either. It isn’t bigotry. It isn’t intolerance. It’s an utterly unavoidable reality, one which every civilization throughout history has held as true. The union between a man and woman, in principle, has a power and a capacity which no other union could ever possess. For this reason it certainly is not “equal” to any other union. For this reason it is different. For this reason it is something, and everything else is something else. Period.
A man and a woman can create other humans. They can form families. They can bring forth life. This difference is not an aberration or a matter of mere semantics. It’s important, serious, pivotal, profound. It's everything. It's the whole point.
[sharequote align="center"]Marriage is the context in which families are formed and maintained. That’s why it’s important. [/sharequote]
The relationship between a man and a woman has a potential that is completely unique. It has attributes that cannot be emulated by any other human relationship.
Societies across the globe and throughout history, until about 12 minutes ago, have attested to the power of the male-female bond and appreciated the fact that the survival and propagation of civilization depends entirely on it. No other relationship bears the weight of that responsibility. So, in light of this, most societies have afforded this bond a certain respect, both out of necessity and sound philosophy, and this bond was given a name: marriage.
Marriage is the context in which families are formed and maintained. That’s why it’s important. That’s why it’s different. To “open up” the definition of marriage to include relationships that do not share these essential components, is to actively undermine the importance of the family, and to obliterate any reason for the institution to exist.
What Is Homosexuality?
People aren't "born gay." Your sexual proclivities develop as you get older and go through puberty. Your attractions aren't set in concrete from birth -- they change and grow and, in some cases, warp over time.
Progressives believe that our gender can fluctuate between any of 52 different options over the course of our lives, yet they insist that our sexual appetites are somehow written in the stars from the moment of conception. It's ludicrous, obviously, but it's necessary in order to convince us of two contradictory propositions: 1) Gays are a community as natural and legitimate as any racial or ethnic group. 2) Men and women are groups more fluid, transformable, negotiable and indecipherable than any other entity or substance on Earth (other than the Constitution).
Through this clever bit of nonsense, they've managed to procure for gays the special right and privilege to redefine the institution of marriage, and for men and women they've created the supernatural right to change their biological nature.
The truth, however, is that your sexuality is closer to what they say about gender, and your gender is closer to what they say about sexuality. They have it exactly reversed, as usual.
Your race, your sex, your species -- these are categories of being. They can't be altered or modified. They are given to you, they are you. They are part of your design.
The same cannot be said of homosexuality.
What a homosexual is experiencing is a compulsion, a temptation, a proclivity. He is not defined by it unless he chooses to be. He is defined in part -- at least on a physical level -- by his race and sex, but his sexual desires do not control him or create him or enslave him. They are just urges. And it is simply preposterous and insane to afford special rights to a man's urges.
There's one other point that needs to be made here: Before the legalization of gay marriage, the government wasn't "involved" in marriage, as so many have claimed. It merely recognized the reality of it, acknowledged its importance to society, and took rational steps to protect this essential institution. This was not an interference. For a government to say, "we need strong marriages in this society or our civilization will collapse" can hardly be considered some kind of overreach. It just made sense. It was logical. It was prudent.
Now, though, with the State finally and universally proclaiming that marriage is something other than what it actually is, we will see what government interference in marriage actually looks like. People have long complained that the government should get out of marriage, but it was never in marriage until it decided to dismantle and reshape it.
This is the government in marriage, and it's a disaster, and our nation will suffer for it, as well it should.
But no matter what happens next, even if America itself crumbles and dies, marriage itself will remain what it's always been.
There is only one type of marriage. Marriage can only ever mean one thing. The Truth of marriage will stay the same, even as our society descends into total confusion.
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.