Most especially, a piece by Dennis Praeger.
Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.
Where to begin...
First, this is how the judicial system works. It's not activist judges, its juidicial review. Since Mr. Praeger isn't railing on about the fallacy of Marbury v. Madison, I'll assume this is just sour grapes because he doesn't like the decision. If it were 4-3 the other way, would his outrage be the same?
Second, whether or not same-sex marriage has been recognized by any religion at any point in time is completely and totally irrelevant, assuming it were even true. The court is only ruling on the definition of marriage in so far as state law is concerned. Whether an individual religion wishes to recognize same-sex unions is completely and entirely up to that religion. Whether states treat couples the same in terms of taxes and property inheritance and the likes is all this ruling affects.
If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will
eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from
imagining one day marrying their prince charming -- to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.
The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity -- especially females -- can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction -- until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is "heterosexism," a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.
The above paragraphs are so ludicrous it's almost sad. The idea that by somehow saying to a same-sex couple that the law recognizes them in the same way it does a man and a woman will somehow make little girls grow up to dream of their princess in shining armor is proposterous fear-mongering. This ruling in no way makes it a social faux-paus to engage in heterosexual sex or enter into a heterosexual relationship. Something tells me that girls will still find a way to have sex with boys and somehow, someway the human race will reproduce enough to survive.
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.This just makes my mind hurt. Is hate speech illegal now? The existance Fred Phelps, recent court rulings aside, makes me question the validity of this statement. The KKK still exist post...I don't know, the Civil War...so something tells me even if this cockamamie anaology were accurate, Mr. Praeger and those of like minds would not need lawyers.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger -- if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
And this is bad because.......
The mere fact that Mr. Praeger and the rest of the radical right has a social or religious objection to this lifestyle is not justification for any kind of different treatment under the law. Once again, this is not the court trying to enforce a moral standard, quite the opposite. If anyone is guilty of presumptiously claiming the moral high ground on this issue, it is the right.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed -- and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists -- the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father -- the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.
Really? And all this time I thought all those "activist" wanted was equal treatment under the law. Silly me.
Anticipating reactions to this column -- as to all defenses of man-woman marriage -- that it or its author are "homophobic," i.e., bigoted and unworthy of respectful rejoinder, it is important to reaffirm that nothing written here is implicitly, let alone explicitly, anti-gay. I take it as axiomatic that a gay man or woman is created in God's image and as precious as any other human being. And I readily acknowledge that it is unfair when an adult is not allowed to marry the love of his or her choice. But social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life's unfairness. Thus, we must love the gay person -- and his and or her partner as well. But we must never change the definition of marriage. The price to society and succeeding generations will be too great.
That's comforting. You're not a homophobe, you just play one in the newspaper. But, what praytell, is the goal of the justice system if not to obtain, you know, justice? The rule of law exists to preserve order and justice, not piety. It is not a tool to protect morality, nor should it be.
That is why Californians must amend their state's Constitution.
Ya, because amending the Constitution to define what the citizens can't do worked SO well the last time.