Might Makes Right
While many are heralding the Supreme Court’s ruling forcing Same-Sex Marriage as a victory for liberty, it is in fact the exact opposite. The simple fact is that same-sex couples already could marry in the most important sense of marriage, in the sense of a commitment between two people. In fact since the 1970’s there have been churches that would perform same-sex marriages. This ruling does not change that.
What has changed is the governmental, i.e. societal, implications of marriage. It is not so much a new freedom for same-sex couples, but a mandate on those who would disagree with the perceived wisdom of the Court. As the most fundamental institution of society, while the court’s ruling will have little if any impact on individual couples, even same-sex couples, it will have a significant, far reaching, and sadly little understood impact on society.
Since marriage has historically been the fundamental basis for society, ultimately this will force a major redefinition of society. The basis for government’s interest in marriage in the first place was the belief that the best way to raise children was in a two parent family with a man and a woman. Such a society is going to be a different society than one where there is no difference between men and women and thus the combination does not matter. (Quick question, how many mothers believe that as a woman they bring nothing unique to raising of their children and two fathers would work just as well?)
The simple history of this has been pretty clear. When this became an issue the vast majority of the people strongly opposed it. When they were asked to vote on it, they rejected it. It was finally imposed by a few state courts demanding that laws be changed, and until yesterday in all but a couple of states this has been mandated by courts over the direct opposition of the people. Now the Supreme Court has mandated it on the entire country, not because the Constitution demanded it, but because five Judges were in a position to impose their personal beliefs on the country.
And that’s what they were: personal beliefs. This is a radical experiment in human history. The verdict of history is clear, despite other alternatives being tried, traditional marriage has been found to be the best way to raise children. This is not just a religious belief but is the near unanimous consensus view from all cultures and periods of history. Anyone who claims “the science says” on either side is either vastly misinformed or lying. Same-sex marriage is simply too new to make any assessment scientifically. The current push for same-sex marriage is based not on history or science but ideology; the premise that gender is irrelevant. But if science has anything to say on this subject it is that this premise is false.
While a popular belief in the 1960s and 70s, there is now little doubt that as shocking at it may seem to some, men and women are different. They think differently, they react differently, their brains work differently. Now perhaps this does not matter, but perhaps it does. The problem is that the court has through its power settled this question before it was really even asked.
What was ultimately clear in this decision is that we have lost the key foundational principle for the country, i.e., that people have the right to govern themselves. This is not an expansion of liberty, but a massive loss of liberty. It is unclear exactly how this will work itself out, but this is part of the problem. These five judges have removed this discussion from the political process. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the abortion debate but only magnified it into political cancer that has corrupted the political culture, so will this decision. Given the importance of marriage, probably even more so.
Rather than work towards a political consensus that rests on the majority of the governed for its authority, Same-Sex marriage now rests only on the power of the Supreme Court. Yet in making this decision, once again the Court demonstrated that it long ago cut itself off from the Constitutional basis of its own authority. Now, rather than the Constitution, the authority of the court rests on habit, tradition, but mainly on the power of the government. Rather than the right of self-government, which was the foundation for the formation of this country, we have returned to might-makes-right authority of a monarchy, a monarchy now dressed up in the black robes of a majority of the Supreme Court.
The people celebrating this ruling, are merely celebrating that the monarch has agree with them, and it is always easy to support the king, when the king make rulings you like.
The worst aspect is that this is not the end, but just the beginning of the battles that will now flow from the implications of this decision being forced into the political system. Churches are threatened and religious freedom is already under attack and will now be more so. Schools will certainly become battle grounds as textbooks are rewritten to promote and push the new definition of family, pushing even more children into private and home schooling, which will undoubtedly also come under assault.
In the normal democratic process it is often possible through give and take to form a consensus, but Court mandates do not permit consensus since by their very nature they are mandates. Court mandates allow the extremists to dominate, which is rarely a good thing. But that is where we are.
