Letter to the Editor: The Supremes, judicial tyranny and gay marriage
Five lawyers in black robes, sitting on the Supreme Court, have decided for the country the definition of marriage. They know better than 320 million people, the fifty states and their democratically elected state legislatures. Determining the nature of marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Deciding its definition is not a power of the federal government. It is left to the states and the people. But we are no longer ruled by law or the Constitution but by judicial (and executive) decree. There is a term for this. Judicial tyranny.
This decision is an assault not just on Christianity but all faiths, our culture, and on American civilization, which is based on the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is an attack on common sense, federalism, separation of powers, and the Constitutional system. But we live in a post-Constitutional age, under attack by the progressive (regressive) left that seeks to turn our culture on its head, and to undermine the two great impediments to centralized government, the traditional married family and the church. These are the twin pillars of the civil society, which stand between the individual and the central government.
This decision is but the latest salvo of the sexual revolution and its war on the family and Christianity. Abortion, radical feminism, gay marriage and transgender issues are all of a piece. This latest gambit contorting marriage into something it is not will make Roe v. Wade, which imposed abortion on the fifty states, pale in comparison. What will come next, throuples? Quartets? Lease-a-Marriage? Now that the requirement of sexual complementarity has been broken, why should they not be accorded rights?
But five leftist judges cannot redefine marriage. It remains a union between a man and a woman, a natural, organic institution based on nature and biology that precedes the political order. Its purpose is to civilize the mating process and to provide the best environment for children to grow in. It is not about validating the adult relationship of your choice or satisfying elite opinion but creating new life.
With this decision, the five judges, the left, and the Democrat Party, have unleashed a firestorm of cultural warfare and litigation that will tear this nation apart. We must defend traditional marriage in the meantime and pursue other measures including Congressional efforts and a Constitutional amendment to reign in our lawless courts and restore marriage.
Dr. Richard Moss
Jasper, Ind.
Mr. Moss, where you upset with the 1967 Supreme Court ruling allowing interracial marriages? A Virginia judge said “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
Point by point rebuttal: 1) 5-4 also voted on that little 2000 election that resulted in economic collapse and a lot of dead soldiers. We had to suck it up, and so do you. 2) State rights were important when nobody ever moved. So a couple married in Wisconsin, who wanted to move to Indiana, would not have the same rights as you? That is wrong. 3) So a heterosexual couple can’t get married because they can’t have children? That happens a lot. 4) I’m guessing that when women got the right to vote, you were suggesting “What’s next? Dogs?” The LGBT community can’t be punished for what other people may do. 6) What is a “traditional marriage?” How many kids are allowed? How much time before the first kid? 7) Are you sure you’re a doctor? I ask because there’s pretty shaky grammar in this letter.
This letter would mean a great deal more if it weren’t written by a man who is married to a non-white woman. Isn’t that an affront to “traditional” marriage?
I believe in marriage equality, but apparently Dr. Moss does not. Fortunately for him, the Supreme Court disagrees, and saw fit to legalize interracial marriage in 1967.
Dr. Moss’s position is similar to that of the racist bigots of the past who claimed that “traditional marriage” was only between a white man and white woman. They, like the homophobes of today, hid behind the ludicrous defense of “freedom of religion” in an attempt to deny American citizens equal protection under the law.
Tradition is, in and of itself, a horrible defense for any practice. Traditionally, Americans were allowed to OWN other human beings simply because they were black. Was that tradition good? Of course not! Traditionally, women were not allowed to vote because their sex was feeble-minded. Was that tradition good? Of course not! Similarly, our country has a long tradition of discriminating against gays. Is this tradition good? I submit that it is not. Of course, others are free to disagree with this, but it is my opinion that trying to treat gays as less than equal makes you a jerk.
Luckily for fair-minded citizens, these “traditions” of homophobia and racism are slowly dying out (not slowly enough for my taste). As time goes on, it appears that this type of bigotry has become less acceptable to mainstream Americans, and has been relegated to the hysterical screeching of religious zealots who can’t stand the fact that their oppressive beliefs are no longer mainstream. I applaud our country for moving in a positive direction – one of inclusiveness and acceptance, and away from exclusion and discrimination. God (or whatever) bless America!
Wow, as a doctor I wonder what you would spew if you had a gay couple sought medical assistance from you? Would you refuse to treat them and hide behind your religion instead of the real reason….. prejuduce?