Marriage: A 'Fad' that Threatens Civilization (Diário de Notícias, Portugal)
deciding justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have millennia of decisive evidence
against them. … Homosexual practices have always existed, like so many other
relationships - adultery, friendship, incest, camaraderie - without any
civilization considering it the equivalent of family and marriage. The worse
thing, however, is on another level. Above all, the evil of the decision is
that it manifests the profound fragility of the U.S. Constitution, the
fundamental principles of which should be above cultural fads. When nine votes
intend to change the essence of human life, all of civilization is at risk.
This is much more grave and dangerous than the direct effect of the decision, which
incidentally, is limited to a vanishing minority group."
Last week the United States found that for decades it had
violated its constitution. Given the paramount importance and attentive care
that American society has always accorded its fundamental law - this is
terrible. Worse, the discovery was undertaken on behalf of nine people who are
fundamentally divided among themselves - and the subject of this violation was no
technical detail but a defining element of life itself. The world finds its
dominant power in a surreal situation!
On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its final ruling on
Obergefell vs. Hodges. In a 5 to 4 vote - the narrowest
margin - the justices determined that the states may not prevent marriages
between people of the same sex.
The argument is drawn from the 14th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which was adopted on July 9, 1868 and relates
to civil rights. The struggle for racial equality was long and dramatic and managed
to impose an end to legal discrimination between people. In this case, however,
the invocation is blatantly in error, because there was no legal inequality
among people, so the decision does nothing to bolster equality. Before, all
citizens were faced with the same circumstance before the law because no one,
homosexual or heterosexual, could marry someone of the same sex. Now, though, any
citizen, heterosexual or homosexual, can do so. Therefore, there was no
disparity of rights among citizens to correct.
What was discussed is an issue of equality between
activities - something completely different. Before, unions between people of
the same sex were not regarded as the equivalent of marriage, and now they are.
Yet the 14th Amendment says nothing about the equality of actions, but discusses
the equality of people. So there is a grave formal and legalistic error in last
Is there also a more substantial error? Is marriage possible
between persons of different sexes? The issue is a controversial one. In fact,
due to the intense ideological excitement, this is hardly something that can be
calmly discussed. The split in the Court itself reflects this controversy and renders
its ruling - which didn’t really resolve anything - extremely fragile. The five
deciding justices have millennia of decisive evidence against them. Homosexual
practices have always existed, like so many other relationships - adultery,
friendship, incest, camaraderie, without any civilization considering it the equivalent
of family and marriage. It may even be possible to say that polygamy, though
prohibited under the U.S. Constitution, has historically been closer to marital
relations than homosexual unions.
The difference is not only historical but substantive. It is
true that there are friendships that are more genuine and profound than many
marriages, just as there have been neighbors who are closer to us than parents,
or strangers who are more loyal than siblings. But the family is unique and
incomparable. It’s enough to watch the Gay Pride Parade and the Brides
of Saint Anthony to see that these are very different realities.
This doesn’t mean a lack of respect for these relationships,
as a disagreement doesn't offend the court. But the law doesn’t change what
things are and, however much ideology or legislation demands otherwise,
marriage remains something unique.
Same-Sex Progress in U.S., but Sports Stadium Homophobia Persists (Vavel, Brazil)
There is also a key political issue at play. The law, when
engaging in such issues, diminishes itself before it offends nature. The state
does not regulate love between people - nor can it. The day a parliamentary
majority seeks to legislate intimate relationships is the day it will devolve
into extreme totalitarianism. So over the centuries, kings or governments have
never married people. That was left to cultural and religious tradition. Civil marriage
has only appeared in recent decades as regulatory inflation intruded and meddled
in a wide range of new areas.
Even so, many types of love or friendship, from military
loyalty to family relationships, continue without the need for legal documentation.
In fact, the decision created a single contract for personal relationships –
marriage - due to its unique social influence. Because of this, the June 26decision, in addition to being legally wrong and socially perverse, is
politically unjustified, opening the door to multiple equivalencies with
comparable levels of dignity.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
The worse thing, however, is on another level. Above all,
the evil of the decision is that it manifests the profound fragility of the U.S.
Constitution, the fundamental principles of which should be above cultural
fads. When nine votes intend to change the essence of human life, all of civilization
is at risk. This is much more grave and dangerous than the direct effect of the
decision, which incidentally, is limited to a vanishing minority group.