Will "right to marry" trump the state constitutions?
By Alisa Craddock
You may be aware of what is called the Michigan case that declared that there was a "compelling state interest" in promoting "diversity" which, though no mention was made of homosexuality, did include the open-ended "other things" and the other thing that has been foisted on us is the creation of "sexual orientation" as a protected class under the umbrella of "diversity".
So now the court has said gay marriage is a "civil right", which even the will of the people cannot deny them. The people of California have just acquired enough signatures to get a marriage protection amendment on the ballot for the next election. Assuming the people once again declare their will that marriage is an institution for one man and one woman only, will the court then declare that the constitutional amendment is unconstitutional? What recourse will we then have? This one may go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, and heaven help us if they don't rule justly.
Our courts have decided for us (apparently) that morality has no place in jurisprudence. Consider, though, that all law is based on morality. When you pretend that the law is value-neutral, you are literally dismantling civilization, which requires not merely rules, but that those rules be just. Either you have laws that everyone by common consent adheres to, or you have a dictator who decides arbitrarily, according to his whim, what the law will be today, no matter how perverse or outrageous his law is. We can't be free without laws that are just and upright. These judges act as though people who embrace traditional moral values are just stuck in some backward religious rut. If the moral code that is the foundation of our laws is not from God, then from whom did it come?: Our antecedents, our ancestors, our forefathers. Do we simply ignore the wisdom of our forebears, chuck it all out and start over? It makes no more sense to discard their experience than it would make sense to rescind laws that punish drunk driving. We have the evidence of history that those who drink and get behind the wheel of a car cause accidents, injuries, and deaths. Should we discard the law arbitrarily if a judge decides tomorrow that allowing people to drive is a "compelling state interest" because people need to get to work to contribute to the economy, and that the damage they do or may do to society by recklessly driving while intoxicated is not relevant? Is it only immoral to drive while intoxicated when you injure or kill someone, or damage property? If no one gets hurt, is it okay to do it? Or is there something about drunkenness that is dangerous in itself, and so we make laws that, while not interfering with those who drink privately even to intoxication, require you to restrict your drunkenness to your home, or some other non-public place, and certainly not drive in that condition. And if drinking at home, you abuse your kids or your spouse, does not the law then also have an obligation to step in. In fact, alcoholism, even non-violent, does harm to those you love.
For eons societies have recognized the natural family as the basic unit of civilization, and have determined that there is a "compelling state interest" for the upbringing of good citizens who will contribute to the commonweal. California's ruling, as reported by Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com Editor in Chief, has not only trashed that most vital institution, it has effectively denied children the right to be raised by a mother and a father, which most current research (except that done by those promoting the gay agenda) says is the environment most beneficial to their wellbeing. The children will now be forced to be part of the gay social experiment. So the court is once again placing the desires of adults above the needs of children. Their ruling will wreak havoc on the emotional lives of children who will be pawns in the social agenda of the homosexual couples (or groupings) that obtain them through artificial insemination or surrogacy, or adoption, or whatever other means are contrived to give homosexuals the legal legitimacy they seek. Said the court, "…the institution of civil marriage affords official governmental sanction and sanctuary to the family unit, granting a parent the ability to afford his or her children the substantial benefits that flow from a stable two-parent family environment, a ready and public means of establishing to others the legal basis of one's parental relationship to one's children and the additional security that comes from the knowledge that his or her parental relationship with a child will be afforded protection by the government against the adverse actions or claims of others." [emphasis added].
But does this serve the interests of children being raised in homosexual households? Homosexual behavior, despite the spin, the propaganda, the lawsuits, and the legal advances, is increasingly revealed to be the pathological behavior that it is: The Folsom Street Fair and other extreme public spectacles, the extreme disproportion of same sex sexual abuse cases in the public schools over heterosexual cases (compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the population). Most disturbing, and most relevant to this ruling, is the shameful number of kids reared by same sex couples reporting sexual abuse, or growing up to be homosexuals themselves. And let's not forget that that false legitimacy will also "require" remedial education in grade school to teach other children the "new morality" of "diverse" family arrangements (for the emotional welfare of the children living in those families, of course). But if you look deeper at their agenda, the true pathology emerges: Lesbian Pat Califia, writing in The Age Taboo: Gay Male Sexuality, Power and Consent, said, "Boy lovers and the lesbians who have young lovers…are not child molesters. The child abusers are priests, teachers, therapists, cops and parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody." [emphasis added] So it is sexual morality that is the villain in their eyes, and the true target of their activism.
As the courts, schools, and legislators chip away at the wall that protects children from the predation of adults to serve their own ends, it is the children who suffer. It is always the children who suffer. Destroy their souls and you destroy them. Destroy them, and you destroy the country. What's so hard to understand about this?
Why are grown-ups afraid to look at what they make children see?
Alisa Craddock is a columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. She may be contacted at alisa.craddock at hushmail.com.