Saturday, June 27, 2015

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled for gay marriage

Supreme Court declares same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. That's right, believing American Catholics and other social conservatives, such as from pre-Sixties America: our highest court has kicked us in the teeth. Unthinkable 50 years ago. (Not even a thought among Cold War liberals in power such as Kennedy and Johnson.) Now what?

I guess I'm expected to do one of two things:
  • Attack the gays, which the other side would love. Not biting. I stick to my first lesson on this stuff, from the old America and conservative Christians 40 years ago. Don't pick on them; feel bad for them because they have a problem. (Today, saying they have a problem and that straight is normal are sins in showoff political correctness. "Microaggressions," venial sins.)
  • Spin it as not so bad, really.
It's bad, but...

I'll be a socially conservative scold but not in the way abusive to gays that the other side wants. (The passive-aggressive bullying of the self-righteously peace-loving: make you throw the first punch and have you busted for it. "Hate crime!" A stupid notion, by the way. The law should be about actions, not how you think or feel, other than whether you're responsible for your actions. Does it matter that I murdered you to steal your store's cash at the end of the day or because I hated you for being white? You're still murdered.)

It's a huge symptom but not the underlying problem. Human nature can't change: most people are straight and, being the sexual beings God made them, will still marry and have children, law or no law. A minority of a minority (in the population, about 3% at most are homosexual) pretending to get married doesn't directly affect that; a dog too big for that little tail to wag.

But fewer are marrying and having children. (The PUAs' and MGTOWs' point: what I will describe has turned marriage into a racket that many smart men avoid.) Which leads to this point: who started this? Not the minority of a minority. We did. Straight society, going back to towards the end of America's golden era. Contraception, especially the Pill invented then, and no-fault divorce. When normal people bought the idea that marriage is primarily about how the couple feels about each other, with children, uniting two families, and building society as afterthoughts if that, that, not this Supreme Court ruling, was the beginning of the end of Western civilization at least in the United States. Gay marriage is just a logical extension of this bad principle. As one writer put it recently, we've all become gay: our romantic relationships are superficial.

I've long liked the idea of getting the state out of the marriage business, which would leave both conservative Christians and gays in peace, respecting both's rights. (Except a healthy state has an interest in building society, which real, traditional marriage does. The Soviets were socially conservative for that reason; promote vice among your enemies, not at home.) Looks like SCOTUS has nixed that for the foreseeable future. The left isn't about tolerance; it's about forcing you and me to give up our faith.

Here's a thought. Some conservative clergy, as are some conservative judges (in Alabama), for example, are done with marriage licenses, at least until they get busted. But... since co-habitation is legal, why don't all new conservative Christian couples co-habitate legally, with a church wedding but not a legal one? There's risk and there are penalties, none of the legal benefits of marriage, but think of that as a kind of martyrdom ("offer it up" with Christ's sacrifice and as a penance, as we Catholics say) in which you don't compromise. No pinch of incense for the emperor.

More bad stuff on the horizon, looking at it logically: forget the Constitution, namely the First Amendment allowing the free exercise of religion. It begins: Clinton adviser refuses to comment on church tax exemptions.


  1. Replies
    1. Huh?

      I think John shows his maturity by allowing your childish insult to stand unanswered in his blog combox. Few of us would show such admirable restraint. I don't agree with everything John writes, but I have learned that he is a true Christian gentleman who goes out of his way to see the other person's side. And that's pretty darned rare on the Internet!!

  2. Truth is about objective reality, not what someone wants or feels - there is no such thing as a "gay" man or woman.

  3. "Don't pick on them; feel bad for them because they have a problem."

    This particular problem is, like many others, one that causes bigger problems when it gets exposed to the general population. Just like TB carriers should be under quarantine while they are a risk to others, folks with this particular problem shouldn't inflict it on the general population. In other words: the closet.

  4. I'm trying to follow your logic as to why Christians would be better off foregoing a marriage license. Catholics have lived in this country with divorce, remarriage, contraception... All manner of marriage & remarriage & secular marriage & weddings performed by Elvis impersonators. What could possibly be advantage or wisdom for a young couple to marry in church without a license and forgo the rights and privileges it grants?

    If you can't legislate marriage to your ideal, why not just encourage the faithful to live the ideal and support THEM?

  5. My friend and his wife never got a marriage license. They are Catholic now, but they were Protestant when they were married. The minister had kind of a "libertarian" streak, and didn't make them get a state license. But they were both baptized validly. They have 9 kids. He owns a business which employs 100 or so people. The need to show a marriage license has *never* come up, he told me.


Leave comment