Will SCOTUS End Marriage As We Know It?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by pspr, Mar 25, 2013.

  1. pspr


    This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California's Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State's pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.

    Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law.

    Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core.

    The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme Court will put its official stamp of approval on that cartoonish contradiction-in-terms labeled "same-sex marriage." Ultimately, these nine justices will decide either to recklessly deconstruct, radically redefine and render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage - or leave it alone.

    They'd better leave it alone.

    Here's the bottom line: Homosexual activists don't want the white picket fence. They want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called "marriage equality," but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.

    In a recent column headlined, "The Revolt of Intelligence Against 'Marriage Equality," worldview expert Rick Pearcey addressed one prominent "gay" activist's admission that the destruction of natural marriage signifies the left's ultimate cultural coup de grâce.

    "Masha Gessen, a lesbian and a journalist, spoke frankly about this at a conference in Sydney, Australia," he wrote. "'It's a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry,' she said. 'But I also think equally that it's a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. ... 'Marriage equality' becomes 'marriage elasticity,' with the ultimate goal of 'marriage extinction.'"

    Still, if counterfeit "same-sex marriage" becomes the law of the land, then a whole lot more freaky deaky will follow before marriage extinction inevitably occurs.

    One of liberals' favorite Alinskyite defense mechanisms is to ridicule the opposition if confronted with some irrefutable argument against some hallowed left-wing delusion. Such is the tactic employed whenever a thinking person walks into the room and points out this big 'ol gay elephant: Once the government pretends that some vague combination of "love" and "consent" are all that a "marriage" requires, then other "arbitrary" and "discriminatory" parameters beyond a binary male-female prerequisite must also go poof.

    That is to say, if the Court magically divines some constitutional right to "same-sex marriage," then full "marriage equality" necessarily demands that polygamous, incestuous and any other equally aberrant nuptial cocktail be likewise permitted.

    It's a "no-brainer," right?

    To that end, I'm very concerned with the Supreme Court's recent history of radically redefining that which cannot be redefined. Though examples abound, I'm thinking specifically, as concerns the topic at hand, of the Court's 2003 holding in Lawrence v. Texas.

    In Lawrence, the liberal majority, for the first time in history, radically redefined male-on-male sodomy - hitherto classified "a crime against nature" - as a "constitutional right."

    In his characteristically brilliant dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia voiced my concerns better than I can: "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," he wrote. "Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision."

    So, if the high court removes one natural marriage parameter for one special-interest group, then "equal protection under the law" requires that it remove all natural marriage parameters for all special-interest groups.

  2. Hey, we can stop conjugal visits in prison. All the guys in prison can marry each other. Set up little cell housekeeping units.
  3. Letters from prison:

    Dear Jane,

    I found someone else.

    We are going to be married in Cell Block D next week.

    p.s. You couldn't have children either.

    ppss. Your ass was better but at least I can get a blow job more than once a year. (remember my birthday?)
  4. pspr


    Even Islam finds adultery, etc. against the will of God.

    It's just murder, lying and war that they seem to have gone off the rails with.
  5. If gays want to marry, there should be no issue with it. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't do it.:D
  6. pspr


    If gays want to have something called "majjy" that has the equivalent legal rights as marriage then I reluctantly think they should be able to do that in man's eyes even if some men disagree with it's morality.

    If they want to steal the term marriage, which is and always has been a relationship between a man, a woman and God, for their own use then they cannot.
  7. God, well okay. But everyone is not superstitious pspr.:)
  8. pspr


    Your term is insulting but nevertheless, it's the historical term that is used in the works of God that is being hijacked and should be protected from applying to sinful acts.
  9. I am working on that(being insulting). It seems that besides luke, the right on this board has gotten a bit serious.

    Do you think our government is secular or religious?

    Are we one nation under God? Or is that a myth? Just asking for clarification.

    Clearly, I think it is a myth.
  10. jem


    we were a Christian Nation.
    We once took the oaths required by the Constitution seriously
    We once use public funds to educate children about the bible and use the bible as part of education.
    We once allowed the states to have ties with religious institutions
    We once were so concerned that the Federal govt might be one Church we passed an amendment to make sure they left that up to each state.

    In the 1950s that particular over reaching court started taking God out of out public square and govt.

    We were once a great nation with great cities which once produced 25% of the worlds GDP and save the world from nazism and imperialism.

    Now we infest the world with materialism and promote a moronic culture which is leaves many of our citizens incapable of critical thought or the ability to understand how important it is to protect groups constitutional rights even it is does not effect them directly. Oh who cares if Catholics are forced to give out abortion inducing drugs... if it does not effect someone in favor of birthcontrol ?

    Who cares if people are sent off to Guantanamo if they are accused of being a terrorist... just obey the law.

    Who cares if we take your guns away and govt buys up all the ammo... just don't break the law.

    Who cares if you do not know if you can make that offer, we the SEC will let you know when it is illegal by breaking down your door and arresting you.

    So we have a govt which takes away rights one group at a time.

    So to answer you question... we have substituted God, education and critical thinking skills for what? Drones with slogans.

    #10     Mar 25, 2013