No matter what position you take on gay marriage, every American who values the freedoms of our nation should be deeply disturbed by the methods used to promote it.
Coercive methods to change public opinion on gay marriage reached a new level with the startling words from Supreme Court Justice Kennedy in 1996 declaring that any opposing judgment on the homosexual lifestyle can come only from a desire to “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” “fellow human beings who are homosexual.”
Then, to seal his case, Justice Kennedy incredulously (and audaciously) added that opposing positions are held with with “no reasoned foundation.”
Yet ironically (and hypocritically) Kennedy offered no reasoned foundation for his position. He simply used the typical manipulative method of radical gay rights groups — ad hominem attack on anyone who dares to see things differently.
This is recklessly shameful behavior for one who wears the black robe at such a high level.
Justice Scalia reminded the court that the founding fathers created a judiciary with limited power in order to guard the people’s “right to self-rule against the black-robed supremacy that today’s majority finds so attractive.”
So are we the people willing to stand silently by at such blatant attacks on freedom?
We must vigourously expose the manipulative efforts to portray those who disagrees with same-sex marriage as driven by a malevolent desire to “disparage” or “injure” homosexuals –especially when they come from the highest court of our land.
We are in deep trouble if we allow such coercive assertions of judicial supremacy over the freedom of the people.
We also must expose the incredible hypocrisy of people who have insisted for years that there are no categorical, absolute moral truths now presenting themselves on some kind of moral high-ground against the denounced immorality of those who simply choose to take a different position on gay marriage.
Justice Scalia reasonably and repeatedly exposed the dangerous error of the radical effort to coerce societal compliance with gay marriage. “[T]o defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution.”
Are we really gullible enough to buy the line that any form of opposition to gay marriage is “beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement”? The radical gay activist agenda wants us to believe that anyone who stands for traditional marriage only acts with a purpose ‘disparage,’ ‘injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘demean,’ and ‘humiliate’ fellow human beings who are homosexual.
“It is one thing, wrote Scalia, “for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”
In a warning to the Court, Scalia, suggested that rulings on the issue of gay marriage risk cheating “both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better.”
A recent challenge to the strongest argument for same-sex marriage
In a thought-provoking piece by Hadley Arkes, he suggested that, “The strongest argument made by the proponents of same-sex marriage just happens to be the source of the strongest leverage against their position. It establishes the properties or the terms of argument that the advocates of same-sex marriage simply cannot meet. I call this the jujitsu of same-sex marriage.” (see: “The jujitsu of same-sex marriage” from First Things).