Wednesday, September 9, 2015

The constitutionality of saying no

My grandpa told me about a Twilight Zone episode called “To Serve Man,” about aliens that came to Earth to “serve man.” They didn’t mean minister to man’s needs, but literally serve man as food to aliens. I never saw the episode but was struck by the aliens’ idiomatic subterfuge. And I can’t help but think that the secular autonomy zeitgeist, moving vertically through culture at a breakneck pace, is getting away with a similar subterfuge, harvesting man for the devil while convincing us it’s for our own good.

With the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk’s office giving marriage licenses again, deputy clerk Brian Mason says the office will issue licenses in Kim Davis’s absence if anyone seeks them. Ahem. Anyone, you say?

A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.

“It’s about marriage equality,” Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”

Why not? Really, why not? Obergefell, ensconced in a horrid lie about the nature of man, destroyed any legal circumscription of marriage. The lengths to which Anthony Kennedy “reasoned” that people of the same sex can be lawfully wedded to each other removed all barriers. Marriage is effectively destroyed; if it can be anything and everything, it is nothing.

Again, here’s Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy on what are the qualifications to be married in America. This, not just same-sex marriage, is the “law of the land”:

It is the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the petitioners’ contentions. This, they say, is their whole point. Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.

If this is the test for marriage, then constitutional protection for saying no is gone. If you want marriage’s privileges and responsibilities, you are automatically entitled to them, without that old bogeyman, discernment, singling out who you are, singling out whom and what marriage is for. Kennedy’s language allows no rational exceptions to the dignity-seeking applicant. Ask for a marriage license, and you will receive. If Obergefell is the law of the land, in my analysis polygamy is already legal, as well as incest and NAMBLA’s favorite, pederasty. The inevitable cries of “Bigot!” await claimants to the contrary.

A common but misguided reaction at this point is to demand the state get out of marriage altogether, as if a rigorous public neutrality will defuse the stand-off between cultural Marxists and traditionalists in the public square. That’s a loser of an argument because:

  • It moves the fight to the private square, where it has already proved to be a useful weapon to end careers and silence dissent.
  • It disarms civil authority as an enforcer of truth.
  • It avoids defending what marriage is.

The law should recognize marriage because it is a figment of nature and civil society, not the invention of religious dogmatists. People who respect that truth will be little affected by a bogus change to how corrupt government defines marriage. The law is window dressing; a discerner can still peer through a false veneer. People vulnerable to the false promises of equality, to the persuasion that sin can’t corrupt their souls, however, this “law” will lead them further from spiritual health and deeper into the den of the father of lies.

No comments:

Post a Comment