united-states-constitution

Love Didn’t Win– It Was Redefined

“Love wins” is the hashtag of choice for those in support of the newest Supreme Court decision that passed that legislative body by a 5-4 vote. If you’re not content with that, you’re just an evil bigot who needs to shut up and support this new legislation. Forget the fact that you have very rational reasons for keeping marriage between a man and a woman.  For example, genderless marriage changes the cultural understanding of marriage from the well being of children to merely the romantic desires of adults.  Mothering and fathering certainly isn’t genderless. For kids who all deserve a mom and a dad and need a culture to support that, love hasn’t won.

But you are to pay no attention to the children behind the curtain! If you don’t change your bigoted position (which isn’t really bigoted) many in the “Love wins” crowd will see to it that you are fired, fined, sued, run out of business and forced to violate your conscience and God. Churches too! (Wow, if this is “love,” I’d hate to see what hate looks like!)

Each side on this issue believes the other side is wrong. There is a moral judgment being made whether you are for or against redefining marriage. Morality is always legislated (or judicially imposed). So what is the right morality?

The Supreme Court has told us. Five justices imposed their own morality that elevates homosexuality to a virtue in our society. They say states can’t merely permit homosexual behavior (a neutral position); states must now promote it by granting benefits and, in Justice Kennedy’s words, “dignity” through the most “profound” union of marriage.

Those who don’t agree with this new morality imposed by the court are, in effect, the new sinners motivated by “disrespect” and “animosity” (“animosity” comes from Kennedy’s Lawrence decision—precedent he cited to justify his own animosity toward opponents of genderless marriage). Yes, unfortunately the Court smears all opponents of its new morality with the same judgmental bigotry it says it detests.

This raises a profound question that is central to this decision and every decision we make in politics. What is our standard? By what standard do we judge something right and its opposite wrong? By what standard do five justices elevate homosexuality to a virtue and declare any opposition to that position “animosity“ and “disrespect.”

The standard should have been the Constitution, but the Constitution was ignored in this case. Justice Roberts rightfully wrote in dissent, “The Constitution had nothing to do with it.” (Roberts ignored the clear reading of the law in the Obamacare case, but at least he got it right this time.) While the majority said they consulted the Constitution, Kennedy actually spent most of his opinion citing his own horrendously argued previous opinions that also ignored or distorted the real Constitution.

When you look at the real Constitution (the one the people actually passed, not the “evolving” one invented in the minds of politically motivated judges), it’s easy to see why this court is wrong. When the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state, and women and blacks didn’t even have the right to vote. If the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment didn’t even ensure a woman’s right to vote, it certainly doesn’t ensure a woman’s right to marry another woman!

And by Kennedy’s own admission just two years ago in the Windsor decision, marriage is a state, not a federal issue (unless a law violates the 14th amendment’s prohibition of racial discrimination, something that was not in play in this case). Now suddenly two years later, Kennedy, along with his mini legislature, decides that everyone, including himself, has been interpreting the 14th Amendment incorrectly for 147 years!

Want to give women and blacks the right to vote? Then amend the Constitution (which the people did). Want to make marriage a federal rather than a state issue, and change it into a genderless institution? Then the people need to amend the Constitution.

But the Court decided to ignore all that. Kennedy and his anti-democracy cohorts decided that they were the new standard. Not the Constitution. Not the people. Not God or His natural law, which gives us the “self-evident” truth that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are profoundly different in many ways, most importantly by their capacity to create and nurture children.

The personal opinions of five unelected justices now comprise the new standard that 320 million people must obey.  Ironic, given the fact that in 1992 Justice Kennedy wrote that everyone had “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Now Justice Kennedy and his cohorts have abandoned that self-defeating, relativistic psychobabble and imposed on the entire nation a new absolute– their own meaning of marriage. Even if you are for genderless marriage, the fact that five unelected people think that their personal opinions are the standard for the rest of us should scare you.

If five people can ignore the Constitution and redefine the institution that holds together the foundation of civilization— the biological two-parent family—then no law or liberty is safe. That includes free speech and the free exercise of religion. (They are coming after those next.)

“Oh, but we have the Bill of Rights,” you say. “They can’t take those away.”

They already have to a certain extent. Ask the baker or the florist how that whole 1st Amendment free exercise of religion thing is working out for them right now in their bakery and flower shop?

With this group it doesn’t matter what the Constitution actually says. It doesn’t matter what laws you pass or what the words mean. It doesn’t matter that we are supposed to be governed by the rule of law not the whims of men. The whims of five people are now supreme—unless governors decide to evoke the Tenth Amendment and nullify this decision for their states, which they should. Is there a governor who will save this country from an imperial court? Is there an Andrew Jackson in a governor’s mansion anywhere?

The words of John Adams couldn’t be more fitting: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Love hasn’t won—the immoral gods on the Supreme Court just changed its definition.

27 replies
  1. Luke says:

    Frank Turek said:” For kids who all deserve a mom and a dad and need a culture to support that, love hasn’t won.”

    Yes, we all know that before this ruling every single child in the United States had a committed mother and father.

    I apologize for being sarcastic, but it’s baffling that anyone expects this sort of argument to be taken seriously.

    Reply
    • TGM says:

      Agreed Luke. I wonder why the sort of vitriol directed toward same sex marriage is not also directed at single family homes and towards parents that abandon their children. I guess it’s just easier to bully the unusual and politically underrepresented.

      Reply
      • JustThinking says:

        Luke and TGM, I would respectfully suggest that Frank’s article would be less “baffling” and vitriolic if you would simply re-read it and understand the point he is making, and then ask the following questions about your arguments: What laws either promulgated by a federal or state legislature, or imposed by judicial fiat (as the Supreme Court has done here) promote single parenting? Are you aware that every state has laws with civil and criminal punishment for parents (usually “deadbeat dads”) who abandon their children and don’t pay child support to raise them? Would you agree those laws are designed to discourage single parent families and to protect children? Would you agree that laws which force parents to support their children are moral?

        My hunch is that neither of you have been around children very much or perhaps you haven’t thought through the implications of what same-sex marriage will do to the children who are brought into unions with surrogate mothers and fathers. Children have a deep desire to know their biological parents. In case you don’t understand that, talk to anyone who has been adopted or who has been raised in a same-sex household where the surrogate mother or father is not known. Adoption into a loving family is the best solution for an unwanted child, but promoting same-sex marriage undermines what research and history show and everyone inherently knows: that raising children in the household of the biological parents produces the most stable society. Unfortunately, five unelected justices of the Supreme Court have decided against that, which as Frank says, should be unsettling to everyone regardless of their position on the issue. Thank you for reading.

        Reply
    • CS says:

      It’s baffling how you attempt to justify negative behavior by pointing to other negative behavior. I’m baffled.

      Reply
      • TGM says:

        Perhaps you might want to reread the comments. In neither case did we attempt to justify any behavior. Our commentary was intended to invalidate one justification often used to oppose SSM.

        Reply
    • CS says:

      Thanks for censoring my reply. I doubt Frank would approve of that. I just found this website and I won’t be coming back. Great job acting like a pro censorship leftist.

      Reply
  2. Alan Halsey says:

    Love didn’t win. And what does love have to do with it, anyway? Regardless of sexual attraction or gender confusion, people have always been permitted (and even promoted) to love. Homosexuality is about sex. Marriage has been reduced to a genderless relationship where sex is the only consideration. Hardly the concept of marriage provided by the One who designed it.

    Reply
    • Luke says:

      Alan said: Homosexuality is about sex. Marriage has been reduced to a genderless relationship where sex is the only consideration.

      Maybe this is how you view your current or potential marriage, but this is not how most people think.

      I hate to bring out the old comedic trope, but ask the nearest married person about this. The best way to wipe out sex from a relationship is to say “I do”.

      Luke

      Reply
    • TGM says:

      Actually, heterosexuality is just as much about sex as homosexuality, too. Moreso, even. In fact, Frank would probably agree as he loves to remind us about the baby-making power of heterosex. But what is more astounding about your comment is the naivete. Let me requote you with a couple of simple changes…

      “Marriage has been reduced to a [gendered] relationship where [political power] is the only consideration.”

      This statement describes an overwhelming percentage of marriages, historically, as noble families schemed and poorer families allied for survival. What does love have to do with that? Is that also “the concept of marriage provided by the One who designed it.” Marriage was a political institution before it was ever a social or romantic one.

      Reply
  3. James K says:

    I am shocked the Supreme Court feels they have the authority to rebrand the historical definition of the English word, “marriage.” Like it or not, here is the definition of marriage in Noah Webster’s 1828 edition of the American Dictionary of the English Language.

    MAR’RIAGE, noun [Latin mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children. [1]

    I find it scary that the Supreme Court feels they have the legal authority to reformulate the definition of the word marriage, which had already been historically defined for centuries. Even if they feel they have the right to change the constitution without an amendment, they should at least have the courtesy to choose a different term than the word marriage. Why is it OK to offend one group by redefining a sacred word tied to husband/wife procreation in order to appease and not offend another group? In all due respect, the word “marriage” is already taken! Please call it something else. Why not “civil union” or “common union?”

    Consider the future consequences of a Supreme Court that can freely reformulate the meaning of words through legal action. This reminds me of when the Indiana legislature wanted to redefine the mathematical constant Pi to 3.2 . [2] How absurd. Consider the recent story about Ms. Dolezal, a local chapter president for the NAACP. She was discovered to be a Caucasian impersonating herself as a member of the African American race.[3] She identified with African Americans so much that she changed her physical characteristics to appear black and sincerely desired to immerse herself into their culture and take on their social causes. Many were outraged and called it an offensive impersonation. Perhaps she should appeal to the Supreme Court to reformulate and add to the definition of what it means to be African American. Rather than chastising Ms. Dolezal, shouldn’t she be championed as a fighter against discrimination, intolerance and exclusivism? Perhaps she should petition the highest court in the land to abolish a repressive distinction so she could legally become an official African American citizen and thus promote a type of ”racial fluidity.“ After all, is it not a denial of her personal freedom to forbid self-definition by the terms she chooses?

    In my view, the Supreme Court Supreme Court hijacked the existing trademarked use of the term “marriage.” I think dissenting justice John Roberts sums up these concerns well.

    “Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. “[4]

    [1] Noah Webster, “Webster’s Dictionary 1828 – Online Edition,” Webster’s Dictionary 1828, accessed June 30, 2015, http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/marriage .
    [2] Deanna Haunsperger and Stephen Kennedy, The Edge of the Universe: Celebrating 10 Years of Math Horizons (Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of America, 2006), Legislating Pi page 97-100.
    [3] Richard PÉrez-peÑa, “Black or White? Woman’s Story Stirs Up a Furor,” The New York Times, June 12, 2015, accessed June 30, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/rachel-dolezal-naacp-president-accused-of-lying-about-her-race.html?_r=0 .
    [4] “THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,” 576 U. S. ____ (2015) Roberts, C. J. Dissenting: see pdf page 41. , http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

    Reply
    • TGM says:

      That was a very nicely written, thoughtfully reasoned, and credibly sourced exposition that amounts to: “I don’t like how some people use a word I care about.”

      Just a couple of points for you to consider:
      1. Dictionaries do not define what a word means, they reflect the usage of words. Usage changes.
      2. Rather than seeing this as a redefinition of a word, you might consider the ruling as an extension of rights. In this era of generally diminishing rights, this should not be dismissed lightly.
      3. I’m not sure what your point is regarding Ms. Dolezal. If she has a legitimate case regarding her rights vis a vis her heritage, then she should utilize the courts. The judicial system, for all its weaknesses and limitations, happens to be an excellent resource for settling disputes equitably and peacefully.

      In closing, thanks for referring to the Pi story. It’s one of my favorite tales of bizarre legislative behavior. But your reference omits something. Despite the stupidity of the parties involved, no matter what a group of people wanted to call Pi or what they thought Pi should be, it was accessible to everyone, everywhere, in whatever formulation they desired. Cheers.

      Reply
      • James K says:

        TGM, first, thank you for a respectful response. I can tell despite our differences, you would be a fun person to hang out with and engage in dialogue. I can tell you appreciate civil discourse even if someone has an opposing view to yours. I also enjoy learning the opposing viewpoints and why people have them. You seem to be a lot like my brother. My brother and I both want what is best for human flourishing but we often have very different ideas on what that means and how it is best accomplished. Even so, we learn a lot from each other and have a strong family relationship.
        You are right when you say “I don’t like how some people use a word I care about,” especially when it attempts to changes the meaning of reality.
        I used the examples of Pi and Ms. Dolezal in an attempt to show how silly it is to believe legal decisions can actually change reality by making exclusive definitions equivalent.
        For centuries a necessary condition of a married union involved a biological man/woman just like a man/woman is a necessary condition for copulation. By definition copulation is the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman. I don’t feel it appropriate to give the more formal biologically functional definition. See [1]. Same sex couples can have sex but they can’t copulate.
        I find calling same sex marriage much the same as calling an adopted child the biological child of the adoptive parents. Even though adoptive children can legally be given all the same legal rights as biological children, they can never be the biological children of their adoptive parents. In the same way, the Supreme Court may legally give all the same rights to same-sex unions but they should never call same-sex unions married unions because married unions by definition involve a biological man and biological woman.
        So for me, I find calling the same-sex unions “marriages” as absurd as calling adopted children “biological children” of their adoptive parents. Even though adopted children are equally valuable human beings, have the same legal rights and are equally loved by their adoptive parents, they are still not biological children of them. A distinction remains. Even though the Supreme Court feels they can give both same-sex unions and married unions the same legal rights, a distinction still remains. My point is that it is silly to try and mask the reality of this distinction. Why not have two different licenses for these unions? Just as birth certificates and adoption papers use distinctive paperwork to legally identify the legal parents of a child, why not have separate marriage and civil union licenses? Perhaps this may be an equitable solution for those people of religious faith who feel it is a violation of their free religious expression when they are forced to give marriage licenses to those desirous of same-sex unions.

        [1] “Copulation,” The Free Dictionary, accessed July 06, 2015, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/copulation .

        Reply
  4. Joshua says:

    Glad there are people with an articulate voice and a large platform that can speak loudly and in plain view for the millions of us who disagree entirely with what the Supreme Court has done. Thanks, Frank!

    Reply
  5. toby says:

    Frank: “Want to give women and blacks the right to vote? Then amend the Constitution (which the people did).”

    Okay, vote for people that propose an amendment that disallows homosexual marriage. And when that fails, because it would and you know it, what then? Such a process resulting in failure would basically be an endorsement of the opposite position.

    Reply
    • Terry L says:

      While I would still disagree with “SSM” even if the Constitution were amended, I would at least recognize the legitimacy of the American people to decide how they want to live.

      That’s why I can’t agree with TGM’s statement, “Rather than seeing this as a redefinition of a word, you might consider the ruling as an extension of rights. In this era of generally diminishing rights, this should not be dismissed lightly.”

      As it is, IIRC, in only 11 states have the people actually chosen to recognize SSM. While I think their choice is misguided and dangerous, I recognize the right of the citizens of that state to make their own choices. In many other states (more than 11), the people have rejected SSM, only to have their voice silenced by the judiciary.

      Toby says, “when [an attempt to pass an amendment] fails, because it would and you know it, what then? Such a process resulting in failure would basically be an endorsement of the opposite position.”

      And the problem with that is…? We are supposed to be a government by the people? What Toby has just said is that average Joe America does not want this new “right”, and those who support it know this! They can’t win in the ballot-box, or in the court of public opinion, so they’re forced to resort to bad judicial decisions to impose their will on the country.

      If you truly believe that America needs to support SSM, then by all means, argue your position. Try to convince the majority. That’s exactly why we have freedom of speech. You have the right to plead your case to the citizens in an attempt to change their minds.

      Further, I am… well… was… free to move my family to another state if my own had chosen this path. We had states where SSM was legal, and states where it was not. If you were a gay couple in TX and wanted to marry, you had the choice to move to MA. If you lived in MA and disagreed with SSM, you could move to TN. Thanks to five individuals, the majority of persons who disagree now have no place where they can live in accordance with their beliefs. (Yes, I am not required to marry a person of the same sex; but we’ll wait and see what ramifications this decision has for people who dissent!)

      This should not happen to the majority in either a democracy or a republic. It is not the prerogative of the court to create or expand rights, nor to create law where no law exists. Our legislatures are perfectly competent at creating bad laws! ;)

      So this was not an expansion of rights of the American people; this was a slap-in-the-face of the majority; a power grab by a small oligarchy on behalf of a minority that overrode the will of sovereign states, many of which had already decided this issue for themselves.

      One should find this troubling, regardless of whether you support SSM.

      Reply
      • toby says:

        There are checks and balances between the branches of government. We as voters are a check and balance for the government and the government, whether stated or not, is a check and balance on us. You said:

        “This should not happen to the majority in either a democracy or a republic.”

        Are you bemoaning for the absence of tyranny of the majority? You’re smart, imagine whatever -ist (sexist, racist, etc) is in the majority and able to treat people in that country like they’re only 3/5s as good as anyone else. Doesn’t sound good. I vote for people that are, or I hope are, smarter than me so that when the dung hits the windsource they are able to represent the their voters clear headed and dispassionately.

        Reply
        • Terry L says:

          Toby,

          You wrote:

          [Terry] said:
          “This should not happen to the majority in either a democracy or a republic.”
          Are you bemoaning for the absence of tyranny of the majority?

          Not at all. We do not live in a democracy, but a republic. However, in neither of those forms of government should an oligarchy be allowed to overrule the will of the people as expressed directly in a democracy, or by their elected representatives in a republic.

          I vote for people that are, or I hope are, smarter than me so that when the dung hits the windsource they are able to represent the their voters clear headed and dispassionately.

          But tell me which of the five justices in the majority of this decision you voted for? These “smarter” people you voted for never got the chance to speak… or when they did, they tended to vote in opposition to SSM in large numbers. But because a small, powerful, vocal minority of 5 people didn’t like that decision, they overturned the will of millions. This should terrify anyone who understands how our government is intended to operate.

          How many states have passed laws either in the state legislature, or by referendum, only to have the will of the people or the people’s representatives (these persons that you voted for to represent you in a clear-headed and dispassionate manner) overturned by unelected judges without lawful justification?

          We have, I think, eleven states that have introduced SSM via lawful means. Again, I strongly disagree with their decision, but I defend their freedom to choose for themselves under our laws. That same freedom has been denied to 39 states.

          So when put to a vote, voters have overwhelmingly said they wanted marriage left alone.

          The majority of states did not approve this decision; it was forced on them.

          What is your definition of tyranny again?

          Reply
          • Andy Ryan says:

            “The majority of states did not approve this decision; it was forced on them.”

            Likewise, Virginia Vs Loving ‘forced’ interracial marriage on the people of Virginia. The people overwhelmingly didn’t want interracial marriage.

            Do you therefore argue that allowing black people to marry white people was ‘tyranny’?

            “So when put to a vote, voters have overwhelmingly said they wanted marriage left alone”

            Interestingly, a few months ago Ireland put it to the vote and significantly voted for gay marriage, and Frank and others on similar sites still cried foul.

  6. David says:

    If conservatives were really serious about championing family values and protecting traditional marriage they would commit as much time and energy to protesting and trying to outlaw heterosexual divorce as they do banning gay marriage. I don’t think it would be too difficult to show empirically that heterosexual divorce is much more damaging to society than gay marriage. But then they would be faced with another problem, paying the bills when all the offended divorced, remarried adulterers sitting in the pews stopped tithing.

    Reply
    • Terry L says:

      David, I agree wholeheartedly with your first point. I do believe that making divorce easier greatly lowered our valuation of marriage. Setting that ball in motion was a huge mistake by then-Governor Reagan.

      I do not agree necessarily that “it would [not] be too difficult to show empirically that heterosexual divorce is much more damaging to society than gay marriage.” We didn’t know the full extent of the damage that no-fault divorce would cause until years after the fact. It’s way to early to judge what SSM will do. However, we can certainly understand that the breakdown of the family has caused havoc in our society.

      “But then they would be faced with another problem, paying the bills when all the offended divorced, remarried adulterers sitting in the pews stopped tithing.”

      Sadly, I won’t deny that this a consideration for some. Our church still unapologetically teaches that God hates divorce (as he hates all sin). It is NOT an unpardonable sin, but it is certainly not to be encouraged.

      But you are correct in the larger point. There are other factors contributing to the breakdown of the family that have nothing to do with homosexuality or SSM. We should be working to save and promote the family as God designed it, not against any particular threat.

      Unfortunately, it’s often easier to motivate people to fight against an enemy rather than fighting for a good. This is used by both liberals and conservatives, as both sides demonize and talk past the other because we’re so busy fighting against each other, we forget what we’re fighting for!

      Reply
  7. Louie says:

    Its too bad the supreme court didn’t do us all a favor, and decide that government simply stays out of the marriage business all together.

    Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] of an action and silencing dissent through governmental force. The Supreme Court ruling changed the definition of marriage and oppression of dissenting views will soon follow. See previous link for proof, and […]

  2. […] a felony within every state in the union when the 14th Amendment was passed. And as Dr. Frank Turek points out, if the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment didn’t even ensure a woman’s right […]

  3. […] that five judges say that same-sex marriage is a new “right”, I would like to ask a more foundational question: Where do rights come from? Specifically, where […]

  4. […] that five judges say that same sex marriage is a new “right“, I would like to ask a more foundational question. Where do rights come from? Specifically, […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>