Nazgul and Culture Wars: homosexual “marriage”
Supreme Court Ruling To Make Big Impact
(Political Outcast) Homosexuals across the land are celebrating in force as the US Supreme Court voted 5-4 to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, thus opening the door to nationwide same-sex marriage. In the Court’s ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote:
“DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their state, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same state. It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the state has found it proper to acknowledge and protect.”
Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed with the ruling and in his dissent wrote:
“We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.” [Emphasis NAB]
Chief Justice John Roberts also disagreed with the court’s decision and wrote in his dissention:
“I think it … important to point out that its analysis leads no further. The court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the states, in the exercise of their ‘historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,’ … may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.”
Nathan: There is a LOT to be said about this, but the first thing I want to point out is that these Nazgul Nine have demonstrated time and time again that they are no lovers or supporters of liberty. For people to claim this as a victory for libertarian principles is foolish and wrong. Principles of liberty are clear: government has NO authority to decide the legitimacy of homosexual marriage any more than it has to decide the legitimacy of traditional marriage.
At the same time, those who claim (as does the writer of the above article, which goes on to predict disaster) that this decision has or is destroying America need to wake up and smell the napalm: the Republic is DEAD and has been for a long time: at best, things like this are just ensuring that every single cell and organism in the rotting corpse is also dead. American immorality runs rampant, but it can’t kill what no longer exists: American society and liberty and a republican form of government.
Kennedy supposedly went with and wrote the majority opinion in an attempt to moderate the ruling: I find that hard to believe. At the same time, in a narrow way, he makes sense: the law creates conflicts in states and nationally that are not in accordance with the Constitution. As if that still mattered, frankly. Of course DOMA was flawed: Congress is incapable of passing an unflawed law. Totally incapable. The idea that the obligation of one state to recognize the actions of another state in a situation like this (definition of a basic human institution) is stupid and dangerous. If one state (say, New Jersey) redefines rat poison as milk and therefore suited for human consumption, is Colorado or South Dakota obligated to allow the poison to be imported and sold as milk? Of course not. If a New Yorker is wanted for putting 15 rounds in a 15-round magazine by the State of New York, is South Dakota going to “recognize” the legitimacy of the New York law by extraditing the supposed felon? You better believe that they won’t. (Not yet, at least. Colorado will, starting on Monday – at least the General Assembly and the Governor and Attorney General will – the majority of the counties might not.)
Roberts also made some sense with his dissent, but he should have been more blunt. Marriage was not created nor defined by government, local, state or federal – or indeed by any human institution, including the Catholic Church or any other denomination or organization. The States stole their “authority” to define marriage, and now the FedGov tried to steal it from the States. He should have demanded that ALL federal laws regarding marriage were unconstitutional, because NO ONE gave the FedGov that authority.
But I feel the most sympathy with Scalia and his very VERY angry condemnation of the majority decision. The Nazgul, as a GROUP – a gang of nine, have exceeded the hubris of even such people as King Saul and King George III. “Too high an opinion” indeed.
Some commentators have pointed out a number of possibilities. First, what does this open the window to? Polygamy, certainly – indeed polyamory in any combination, whether Muslim one man and four women or old LDS-style one man and one to a dozen+ women/girls or the feminists’ dream of a dozen men and one woman, or the equivalent of a pick-up team for football… And yes, there is a possibility that age restrictions and the end of statutory rape is not too far down the path, as well as the various forms of bestiality and necrophilia and who knows what else. But don’t expect the laws to be disappeared: that is too simple and too likely to provoke a backlash: it is just enforcement that will go away.
And that is the thing I note of particular interest. The Nazgul have, intentionally or not, presented another grave disservice to the suffering people of this nation. By declaring even a part of DOMA unconstitutional (you know that the general public will consider ALL of it to have been voided), they have given a free pass to that swarmy black-face, would-be Himmler minion of the guy who hangs out in 1600. He (obviously with the support of his massa and his massa’s massas) on his own decided to stop enforcing DOMA years before this decision. I suspect that he will simply broaden his activities of refusing to enforce more and more laws.
Never mind the gunrunning, never mind the voter fraud and intimidation and other voter rights (the one part he DID enforce was the part ruled unconstitutional as well, this week). never mind the NSA and IRS and DOJ violations of laws: ANY law that is in someone’s way – as long as that ‘someone’ has any clout or can pay enough – will be enforced or ignored at will. It will appear to be whimsical, but it will not be: it will be done based on some very simple criteria: (a) is it good for me? (b) is it good for my family? (c) is it good for my patrons or buddies? (d) is it good for my clientèle (in the Roman sense)? Don’t worry, religious or traditional American morality won’t play any role in the decision, and now we are definitely back to Caligula and Nero – not just tyranny, but cruel and vindictive tyranny.
We were warned – shucks, we have been warning people a lot. And we just slide farther and farther into the abyss. Government should have NOTHING to do with marriage, but that isn’t going to happen with this government: I cannot see any circumstance except total overthrow of this ersatz regime that would end that interference. Until then, this (like government meddling with divorce and parental responsibility before it) will just speed up the already rapid decay of society, “civilization,” and liberty – while pretending to “liberate” us. Shades of Iraq and Afghanistan, eh?