Gay Marriage Decision the Court Should Make

There’s a lot of rhetoric flying around due to the Supreme Court’s impending decision on gay “marriage.”

One of the most annoying buzz phrases being bandied about is “marriage equality.” The political fight for gay “marriage” is about anything but equality.

For the argument to be about equality, first someone would have to be getting something that you’re not. Despite gay activists’ abuse of the language, that’s not the case with gay “marriage.”

First, they have the exact same rights to marry as anyone else, that is they can marry a consenting adult of the opposite gender.

“Marrying” someone of the same gender in a courtroom and getting special privileges in recognition is not a right anyone has under federal law. It’s a new thing entirely.

However, nobody is stopping gays from walking into their local church that believes two men or two women cohabitating is marriage and tying the intestinal knot.

And that is protected under the First Amendment as freedom of religion.

Marriage is fundamentally religious in nature. Religion tells you if you can marry, whom you can marry, how old your spouse should be and how many spouses you can have. All the permutations of marriage worldwide are under the umbrella of religion.

In fact, government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all. But at least in the case of normal marriage, the government has a legitimate compelling interest in promoting the institution because that is the source of the next generation of citizens.

The same cannot be said about gay “marriage,” which is a thoroughly different concept. There is no compelling public interest in having government promote and subsidize oversexed adults’ fetishes.

If the justices who sit on the Supreme Court were to apply logic, then they should simply rule that for the government to recognize gay “marriage” represents an unconstitutional establishment of religion and bid a belated farewell to an exceedingly bad idea.

In the long run, any win by gay “marriage” advocates will destroy the very institution they claim to want to be part of. A vote for gay “marriage” will open the way for polygamous, incestuous and child marriages.

That should be self-evident as gay “marriage,” in order to win, must eliminate the defining elements of real marriage. Once those elements are gone, then marriage can be anything. When marriage becomes anything, then it is nothing.

Approval by the Supreme Court won’t make gay “marriage” right or homosexuality less sinful. What a gay “marriage” victory will do, however, is put a weapon in the hands of activists who would like to punish anyone who reminds them of that fact.

The Boy Scouts are already in the cross hairs even without a decision. If gay activists win in court, there will no doubt be a sudden and probably orchestrated rash of men in skirts applying at churches, temples and synagogues for jobs as ministers, their lawyers on speed dial.

Believers in marriage probably feel like they have a rock in the pit of their stomachs after some of the weak answers and misleading questions at this week’s hearings.

Whatever the outcome, don’t be fooled into believing that gay “marriage” is about rights when all it’s about is right and wrong.