http://tinyurl.com/6etb3p
California Decision Will Radically Change Society
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Americans seem mesmerized by the word "change." And, by golly, they sure
got
it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine
a
single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite *** to
include members of the same ***.
Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical
a
change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for
the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking
over all health care, not changing all public education to private
schools,
not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and
replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.
Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress
amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme
Court
will have changed American society more than any four individuals since
Wa****ngton, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.
And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who
sup****t
this decision -- let alone the four compassionate justices -- acknowledge
this. The mantra of the sup****ters of this sea change in society is that
it's no big deal. Hey, it doesn't affect any hetero***uals' marriage, so
what's the problem?
This lack of acknowledgment -- or even awareness -- of how
society-changing
is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To
the
four compassionate ones -- and their millions of compassionate sup****ters
--
allowing same-*** marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end
legal
bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their sup****ters know not
what they did. They think that all they did was extend a "right" that had
been unfairly denied to gays.
Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of
four
individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on
the
rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate
ones
in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and
moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their sup****ters have
seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral
philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined
marriage as between members of the same ***.
That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts
undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion
--
not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism -- ever banned
interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of
other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to
convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of
individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on
interracial marriages were not sup****ted by any major religious or moral
system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious
individuals may have sup****ted them. Justices who overthrew bans on
interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious
value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow
the ban on same-*** marriage have nothing other their hubris and their
notions of compassion on their side.
Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion
--
or to any past wisdom -- for one's values has died. Thus, the modern
attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian value system as the basis of
America's
values, and to disparage the Founders as essentially morally flawed
individuals (They allowed slavery, didn't they?). The modern secular
liberal
knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally
superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.
Which leads to a third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly
imposed by four individuals -- the modern supplanting of wisdom with
compassion as the supreme guide in forming society's values and laws. Just
as for religious fundamentalists, "the Bible says" ends discussion, for
liberal fundamentalists, "compassion says" ends discussion.
If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The
California Supreme Court and its millions of sup****ters are playing with
fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only
begin to imagine.
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged
from
imagining one day marrying their prince charming -- to do so would be
declared "hetero***ist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will
be
told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to
describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by
other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a
woman.
The ***ual confusion that same-*** marriage will create among young people
is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the ***ual
know-nothings who believe that ***ual orientation is fixed from birth and
permanent, the fact is that ***ual orientation is more of a continuum that
ranges from exclusive hetero***uality to exclusive homo***uality. Much of
humanity -- especially females -- can enjoy homo***ual ***. It is up to
society to channel polymorphous human ***uality into an exclusively
hetero***ual direction -- until now, accomplished through marriage. But
that
of course is "hetero***ism," a bigoted preference for man-woman *****c
love,
and therefore to be extirpated from society.
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate
speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting
a
ring on a man's finger -- if they show only women fingers, they will be
boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as
antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking
have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians -- i.e. those who believe in a divine
scripture -- will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in
Massachusetts
have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be
adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it -- a man and a woman.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally
regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed -- and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-*** marriage
activists -- the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will
gradually
lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and
cultural
left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little
meaning. That is why same-*** marriage advocates argue that children have
no
need for both a mother and a father -- the ***es are interchangeable.
Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do,
a
second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the
***es, and even they can be switched at will.
And what will happen after divorce -- which presumably will occur at the
same rates as hetero***ual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers
who
divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.
We have entered something beyond Huxley's "Brave New World." All thanks to
the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our
children and their children will pay the price.
Anticipating reactions to this column -- as to all defenses of man-woman
marriage -- that it or its author are "homophobic," i.e., bigoted and
unworthy of respectful rejoinder, it is im****tant to reaffirm that nothing
written here is implicitly, let alone explicitly, anti-gay. I take it as
axiomatic that a gay man or woman is created in God's image and as
precious
as any other human being. And I readily acknowledge that it is unfair when
an adult is not allowed to marry the love of his or her choice. But social
policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life's
unfairness. Thus, we must love the gay person -- and his and or her
partner
as well. But we must never change the definition of marriage. The price to
society and succeeding generations will be too great.
That is why Californians must amend their state's Constitution.
|
