There are two elephants in the living room of America which, because of illegal legalization in one case and mass hysteria in another, can no longer be ignored.

The first is the illegal legalization of same-sex marriage (as well as the reckless approval of nationwide violation of states’ rights) for which five strongly unjust justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are irresponsibly responsible.

Because I have covered this elephant in a previous post (A FEDERAL VIOLATION OF VOTERS’ RIGHTS), I intend for this section to be more of an update.

Let me begin with a quote by Justice Antonin Scalia–one of the four Supreme Court justices who did rule responsibly in this case:

A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

Takes alot of character for a Supreme Court justice to make such a candid, yet piercingly valid statement about the Supreme Court itself, doesn’t it?

Now, putting aside the obvious ethical and moral problems with same-sex marriage, let’s look at the false logic applied in this decision.  This was never about rights.  Homosexuals have always had the same right to marry women that heterosexual men have had.  And lesbians have always had the same right to marry men that heterosexual women have had.

This is about legislating a change in semantics–specifically, forcing an entire nation to change the parameters of the application of a word: marriage.

Robert Hinkle, the U.S. district judge who overturned our (Florida’s) ban on same-sex marriage compared it to states’ bans on interracial marriage–which were overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967.  In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Black woman married to a White man, whose marriage the State of Virginia had refused to recognize.  That 1967 decision ended all states’ bans on interracial marriage.  And I feel that the Supreme Court made the right decision in that case.

But you can probably see why Hinkle’s comparison of interracial marriage to same-sex marriage is flawed:  The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of interracial marriage applied specifically to a marriage between a man and a woman of different races.  A man and a woman.  Interracial marriage, as legitimized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967, is still within the parameters of the application of the term, marriage, that has been the standard for human societies worldwide since humans began to marry in the first place–a union between members of opposite sexes.  In some cultures, polygamy (one man with many women) has been an acceptable form of marriage–and in some cultures, polyandry (one woman with many men) has been an acceptable form of marriage.  But in all cultures, in all of human history, marriage has been recognized as a union between members of opposite sexes–not members of the same sex.

So, what right do five members of “a committee of nine unelected lawyers” have to tell all of humanity, throughout all of human history, that it is wrong?


  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: