Lisa Fabrizio
Not-so-free love
By Lisa Fabrizio
Last week's twin rulings by the states of Georgia and New York against homosexual marriage caused quite a stir. The top courts in both states found that laws specifying marriage as between one man and one woman are constitutional.
As even the New York Times was forced to report, "[T]he Court of Appeals found that the state's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, enacted more than a century ago, could have a rational basis, and that it was up to the State Legislature, not the courts, to decide whether it should be changed."
This concept — that the people and not the courts should decide what is in their best interests — coming as it did from a judicial body in a state as liberal as New York, was quite a surprise. It put the breaks, at least temporarily, on the ugly and unconstitutional assumption that many modern jurists have proffered in recent years: that they know better than their inferiors; our legislative bodies and those who elect them.
On the other hand, New York Court of Appeals Chief Justice Janice Kaye believes the court failed in its sacred duty to legislate and execute laws, as she wrote in her dissent: "It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation." (Emphasis mine.)
This notion would come as a surprise to those who founded this country intending that the judiciary be the weakest of the three branches of our government; so much so that Article III of our Constitution allows Congress to determine both its scope and size.
Still, the two gay marriage-busting decisions brought forth the expected hue and cry from the usual suspects with the usual arguments. They ask: How does granting "equal" rights to homosexuals threaten traditional marriage? How can it harm our culture and society? How does that affect our "families?" These questions deserve hard, honest answers; ones that must not be squeezed through the politically-correct wringer.
Like it or not, although the right to practice any religion is guaranteed by our Constitution, this country was and is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs; one of which is that homosexuality is a sin against man and God and therefore, like most sins, harmful to society. Christianity pre-supposes that man will sin but not that the sate should codify it.
Scoff at religion if you must, but try and deny that the best model for raising children is in a traditional household with one mom and one dad. When this man and woman marry for love and become 'one flesh' they are fulfilling God's natural plan — whether or not they are blessed with children — in a way that is impossible for homosexuals.
Most proponents of gay marriage are cut from the same cloth as those that succeeded in promoting the sexual revolution — begun in the 1950's by folks like Alfred Kinsey and Hugh Hefner — which surged over this nation like a tidal wave leaving our culture in its wake. The message was clear: all and any form of sexual activity is okay and even healthy. 'Love' the one you're with, even if you're all alone.
Kinsey's report reduced human sexuality to that of brutish beasts; unrestrained by passé marriage vows, more like animals than civilized men. Hefner packaged the concept that separated sexual pleasure from love and marriage, and sold it as entertainment. It is no coincidence that when he launched his empire, its symbol was a rabbit.
The results? The quest for sexual 'freedom' has enslaved many millions; women who have become the very sex objects they despised, men who are in the clutches of pornography addiction, and children who are now the sexual targets of the monsters created by the free-love Frankenstein.
Thanks to the great liberation of the sexual act from religious, marital love, we have mothers killing their unborn children, fathers abandoning many who survive, sexually-transmitted diseases and now, a movement telling us that more rampant, procreation-less sex should be recognized as marriage.
Promoters of gay marriage are fond of touting the current divorce rate in defense of their claim that their particular idea of matrimony couldn't tarnish it any further. As if sex-for-its-own-sake is the cure for the dissolution of marriage instead of one of its root causes.
The American people, buoyed by our founding documents, will always support the rights of everyone in this country — including homosexuals — without regard to race, color or creed. The idea that a group's preferred sexual proclivities should qualify for special rights is one that most Americans are and should be against.
As it stands now, 45 states either have laws or amendments to their constitutions banning gay marriage as reflects the will of the people. The truth is, most of us prefer the United States of America to Sodom and Gomorrah.
© Lisa Fabrizio
Last week's twin rulings by the states of Georgia and New York against homosexual marriage caused quite a stir. The top courts in both states found that laws specifying marriage as between one man and one woman are constitutional.
As even the New York Times was forced to report, "[T]he Court of Appeals found that the state's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, enacted more than a century ago, could have a rational basis, and that it was up to the State Legislature, not the courts, to decide whether it should be changed."
This concept — that the people and not the courts should decide what is in their best interests — coming as it did from a judicial body in a state as liberal as New York, was quite a surprise. It put the breaks, at least temporarily, on the ugly and unconstitutional assumption that many modern jurists have proffered in recent years: that they know better than their inferiors; our legislative bodies and those who elect them.
On the other hand, New York Court of Appeals Chief Justice Janice Kaye believes the court failed in its sacred duty to legislate and execute laws, as she wrote in her dissent: "It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation." (Emphasis mine.)
This notion would come as a surprise to those who founded this country intending that the judiciary be the weakest of the three branches of our government; so much so that Article III of our Constitution allows Congress to determine both its scope and size.
Still, the two gay marriage-busting decisions brought forth the expected hue and cry from the usual suspects with the usual arguments. They ask: How does granting "equal" rights to homosexuals threaten traditional marriage? How can it harm our culture and society? How does that affect our "families?" These questions deserve hard, honest answers; ones that must not be squeezed through the politically-correct wringer.
Like it or not, although the right to practice any religion is guaranteed by our Constitution, this country was and is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs; one of which is that homosexuality is a sin against man and God and therefore, like most sins, harmful to society. Christianity pre-supposes that man will sin but not that the sate should codify it.
Scoff at religion if you must, but try and deny that the best model for raising children is in a traditional household with one mom and one dad. When this man and woman marry for love and become 'one flesh' they are fulfilling God's natural plan — whether or not they are blessed with children — in a way that is impossible for homosexuals.
Most proponents of gay marriage are cut from the same cloth as those that succeeded in promoting the sexual revolution — begun in the 1950's by folks like Alfred Kinsey and Hugh Hefner — which surged over this nation like a tidal wave leaving our culture in its wake. The message was clear: all and any form of sexual activity is okay and even healthy. 'Love' the one you're with, even if you're all alone.
Kinsey's report reduced human sexuality to that of brutish beasts; unrestrained by passé marriage vows, more like animals than civilized men. Hefner packaged the concept that separated sexual pleasure from love and marriage, and sold it as entertainment. It is no coincidence that when he launched his empire, its symbol was a rabbit.
The results? The quest for sexual 'freedom' has enslaved many millions; women who have become the very sex objects they despised, men who are in the clutches of pornography addiction, and children who are now the sexual targets of the monsters created by the free-love Frankenstein.
Thanks to the great liberation of the sexual act from religious, marital love, we have mothers killing their unborn children, fathers abandoning many who survive, sexually-transmitted diseases and now, a movement telling us that more rampant, procreation-less sex should be recognized as marriage.
Promoters of gay marriage are fond of touting the current divorce rate in defense of their claim that their particular idea of matrimony couldn't tarnish it any further. As if sex-for-its-own-sake is the cure for the dissolution of marriage instead of one of its root causes.
The American people, buoyed by our founding documents, will always support the rights of everyone in this country — including homosexuals — without regard to race, color or creed. The idea that a group's preferred sexual proclivities should qualify for special rights is one that most Americans are and should be against.
As it stands now, 45 states either have laws or amendments to their constitutions banning gay marriage as reflects the will of the people. The truth is, most of us prefer the United States of America to Sodom and Gomorrah.
© Lisa Fabrizio
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
