Arguments That Weren’t Made Helped Create Gay Marriage Ruling

In many ways, Friday’s Supreme Court ruling creating a right to homosexual “marriage” out of thin air was inevitable, particularly with two ringers, Justices Ginsberg and Kagan, illegally refusing to recuse themselves from the decision.

But aside from the obvious judicial corruption being acceptable to the other seven justices, there were several aspects to homosexual “marriage” that should have been considered but either were not argued or were ignored.

The first and most obvious of these is morality. Just like with abortion, the justices’ ruling may make homosexual “marriages” legal, but it does not make them moral or normal.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Portland Mayor Stands By Orders to Police to Stand Down as Dangerous Antifa Rioters Attacked Citizens

With this ruling, the justices have elevated homosexuality to a protected legal status equivalent to race, gender (birth gender, not made-up gender) or handicap. This ignores the obvious, that homosexuality is not a consequence of birth. No gene has ever been found by reputable researchers to influence homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a behavior and therefore a choice. To elevate behavior to protected status is to open the floodgates. Perhaps alcoholism or kleptomania should receive protected status as well, and we should therefore repeal drunk driving laws or laws against shoplifting.

We don’t do that, however, because we recognize that drunk driving and theft are moral decisions that have harmful effects on society and therefore should be discouraged. Homosexuality is also a moral choice to go against not only the natural behavior of humans to mate with someone of the opposite sex, but to go against the societal norms of dating and marrying someone of the opposite sex.

This also has ramifications when it comes to raising children, as homosexual “marriage” chooses to downplay or completely ignore the psychological and emotional needs of children to have a mother and a father.

Regardless of what you think of those choices, they are undeniably a decision made by an individual, no matter how that person may protest being “swept away” by his feelings. By ignoring the moral issue altogether, both the lawyers arguing for traditional marriage and the justices avoided the real heart of the matter.

The justices’ decision also ignored legal reality. Much of the majority’s opinion hinges on the 14th Amendment, due process and equal protection. Essentially, the court’s majority decided that not issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples violated their rights because heterosexual couples could get a license in all 50 states.

That argument, however, just assumes the answer that homosexual activists wanted to find. By assuming legal rights for homosexual couples, the court entirely skirted the issue of whether homosexuals have a constitutional right to form a legally recognized couple in the first place. That is, or should be, a question for the legislative branches of government.

Marriage is a religious institution. That is undeniable, and as such it should be protected under the First Amendment. If proponents had asserted homosexual “marriage” as a religious right, that actually would have been a reasonable argument. But it also would have precluded legally forcing other people to accept that redefinition of marriage, which is the real point of the homosexual rights movement.

As a legal institution, the state’s sole interest in marriage is due to its interest in the welfare of children. From the standpoint of individuals, all people who are of legal consenting age and mentally sound are allowed to obtain a license to wed one person of the opposite gender.

Homosexuals have since Day One had exactly the same right as everybody else. In other words, there never was any discrimination against homosexuals as individuals. The question the court should have decided was whether the state had any business giving out licenses for an individual to marry someone of the same biological gender.

Instead, that consideration never even entered the discussion.

The justices also ignored the Constitution, regardless of however much they may refer to it. The word “marriage” simply does not exist in the Constitution, which means that the definition of a legal marriage is one of those rights left up to the states to decide. And nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court empowered to make a law that does not exist (nor to rewrite one to make it legal, as in the case of Obamacare).

The court’s ruling also shockingly ignores the likely long-term consequences of legalizing homosexual “marriage.” With legal cover firmly established, homosexuality will now be taught by law as normal in every school in the land, from preschool through college. Students will be expected to parrot the lessons, and school counselors, administrators and teachers will encourage students to follow their “inner rainbow” or some such nonsense.

The bottom line is that schools will become homosexual recruitment stations that encourage children to trade normal, healthy relationships for physically and mentally unhealthy homosexual relationships.

It should be easy to predict the results: an increase in STDs; increase in child sexual abuse; an increase in student depression (probably with a secondary increase in drug use); an increase in child suicide; an increase in atheism/nihilism; a decrease in traditional morality; an increase in teen pregnancy and single parenthood; a decrease in traditional marriage.

Just like with Roe v. Wade, Friday’s Supreme Court ruling won’t end the debate on a contentious social issue, but likely ramp it up.

Homosexual activists have been salivating in anticipation of this day. The next phase will be the active persecution of churches that refuse to submit to judicial tyranny. As Phyllis Schlafly noted, this is just the beginning.

Previous Carly Fiorina Argues that Marriage is a Spiritual Institution
Next Why Don’t Pro-Gay Companies Use These Real 'Gay' Images to Promote Their Products?


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.