R.T. Neary
After same-sex marriage -- a journey to the absurd
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By R.T. Neary
February 9, 2015

The U. S. Supreme Court has agreed to hold hearings in April, which are being conducted to resolve contrary decisions in several lower courts. The hearings are to examine the legality of two members of the same gender in a marriage relationship, and the rights of individual states relative to the issue.


No Longer The Norm

The outcome seems to be a foregone conclusion with all barriers being swept aside. It will be either a 5 to 4 or 6 to 3 vote, depending on whether Chief Justice John Roberts sides with the majority. The issue of Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) has been guided through activist courts and now is on a fast track to rendering traditional marriage as being only one of many forms nationally.

Obviously, the decision will be based on an interpretation of the U.S.Constitution, which does not even mention the word marriage. The court can be expected to cite prior lower court rulings and precedents from other Supreme Court decisions. Comparing 4 differing lower court decisions, the highest court will certainly create a legal landmark.

As with the road to the Roe v Wade abortion legalization, "penumbras" and "emanations" will now reveal the legal basis for establishing this revolutionary societal change. The movement to accomplish this re-design of the social landscape will have attained its goal in less than a decade and one-half.

Eyebrows are still being lifted nationally how ideas, assembled and incubated in a legal laboratory at Harvard University, could have been propelled into mainstream society so fast. The seeds were actually germinated in the homosexual/lesbian movement, but a standard-bearer with special credentials was needed to give them the force of law.

Originally, it was thought that after being outed, U. S. Rep Barney Frank would spearhead the effort. But, at a symposium at Harvard's JFK School of Government a quarter century ago, he stated publicly that SSM was beyond the public's acceptance. Barney underscored the statement by saying that even liberal Michael Dukakis, who aspired to the Presidency of the United States, would publicly oppose the concept of SSM.

Moving up the ranks, however, was a one-time exchange student from the privileged Anglo-Saxon Africaner class in South Africa. Gaining residence and citizenship because she claimed anti-Apartheid activities precluded her from returning home, this woman knew all the right buttons to push. Serving as a Director of Crittendon Hastings House, an abortion facility in Boston, and participation in so-called Gay/Lesbian legal organizations were two avenues she pursued. This law clerk once known as "Maggie" made all the right moves and rapidly ascended the "Progressive" ladder, eventually to became a Harvard Vice President and its General Counsel.

Margaret Hilary Marshall, without ever being a judge, was appointed a justice on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court , and after serving less than 3 years became the Chief Justice in 1999. Married to well-known liberal N.Y. Times writer, Anthony Lewis, Marshall had all the fuel to accelerate the drive to change the face of this state's and the nation's social order. She did so.


Her rapid rise and obvious leanings brought out opposition, but in the Bay State political environment it fell short. The Left controlled both political parties, and they pulled out all stops. Even though she was labeled as "crafty" and charged with answering "probably 2 per cent of the questions directly" by one of the elected Governor's Councilors, Dr. David Constantine, Marshall weathered all of her opponents' charges.

Before her elevation to Chief Justice, Margaret Marshall on May 7, 1999 had been the Keynote Speaker at a fundraiser for the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association. In addition to this appearance, it was well known that she was inviting a test case against the status quo on marriage. Goodridge et al vs the Mass Department of Public Health was the eventual result, and it was based on the right of 2 people of the same gender, to legally marry based on the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the first state constitution in the nation..

Despite her having gained such political power, the decision on Goodridge was much delayed, and it became quite obvious that Marshall could not muster 3 more votes from the other justices. It was later learned that one of the staunchest opponents was Martha Sosman, a cropped-hair, single female justice in her 50s, who had been on the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood and was thought to be a shoo-in supporter.

While Marshall eventually nudged a deciding vote to gain a 4 to 3 ruling in favor of Goodridge, it had been on the verge of failing, and Sosman wrote a stinging dissent. Justice Sosman could have been labeled a strict constructionist, and she later called Marshall "dogmatic," stating that she "merely repeats the impassioned rhetoric" of what they both called "gay marriage" advocates. Goodridge had prevailed, however, and the Chief Justice ordered the Massachusetts Legislature to pass the decision into law.

A series of events followed which thwarted a vote, including the Legislature's rejection of a written petition of over 173,000 voters to bring the issue to a referendum. The Legislature never voted, the citizens were denied their rightful opportunity, and then-Gov Mitt Romney ordered town clerks to start issuing marriage licenses to couples of the same gender, and they did in May 2004.

From the Boston Globe to the halls of the universities and colleges, the "pioneer spirit" of this Commonwealth was celebrated. In reality, what came to mind for constitutional traditionalists were the words of Justice Byron White after Roe v Wade was announced. Goodridge was an "exercise of raw judicial power" – sadly.

Hillary and Julie Goodridge later divorced, and the media's spotlight turned to pursue their agenda with other protagonists. Massachusetts became the first state ever to start the process of SSM, but it would be 4 other states which would ultimately get the USSC to decide the issue on the national level. New facets would be added, such as adopted children with special needs.

Same-Sex Marriage is an oxymoron. No amount of verbal gymnastics can change the missing essential element in the millennia-old institution known as marriage. The indispensable component in this revered pairing is complementarity – pure and simple.

This complementarity goes beyond the obviously unduplicatable. physical aspect of the heterogeneous marriage to the psychological, social and societal aspects of this component. Rabbi Daniel Lapin extends complementarity to the souls of the man and wife in the God-given union he admires so much.

Tortured legalese will be very much in evidence before the Supreme Court, and ironically some of what will be presented in support goes right back to the thinking of one of the justices who will cast a vote in favor: Elena Kagan. She was on the faculty and later Dean of Harvard Law School during the incubation of the thinking at Harvard which led to the Goodridge decision and SSM in Massachusetts.

Although Elena Kagan should recuse herself, because of her involvement while at Harvard with the planning which led to the successful Goodridge decision, she obviously feels that her tracks have been obscured in the intervening years. Justice Kagan will join Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer to form the solid block in favor.

After authoring the decision for the 5 to 4 majority in the 2014 overturning of DOMA, the Defense Of Marriage Act, Justice Anthony Kennedy will surely be aligned with them in this venture. The Defense Of Marriage Act had been passed by Congress overwhelmingly and signed into law in 1996.

In Massachusetts when stories circulated about Goodridge dissenter Martha Sosman's sexual orientation, and questioning why she would oppose SSM under the state constitution, she dismissed her orientation as "an inaccurate story."

Elena Kagan, to the contrary, even had heterosexual dating tales disseminated prior to nomination by President Obama to the USSC. She successfully schmoozed her way around the corridors, offices and hearing rooms with ready answers. No Senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee had the courage to ask about her own sexual orientation and involvement in the Goodridge arguments.

Certainly these Senators knew that Goodridge or similar cases would be headed to the Supreme Court for ultimate resolution. The questioning was soft and a far cry from the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas Senatorial verbal lynchings we witnessed conducted by the Democrats, who disagreed with their conservative judicial philosophy.

Elena Kagan sailed to confirmation as the youngest justice on the bench , and with a lifetime appointment has the opportunity to effect enormous damage in our socio/political structure. By the end of June when the decision is announced, much more will be visible..


The institution of marriage, undeniably the solid cornerstone of our great family-oriented, Judeo-Christian culture and government, will have been dismantled by the social engineering of secularists who harbor disdain for these core principles.

The revolutionary changes which will occur with the Supreme Court decision totally removing the heterosexual nature of the dual marriage union will start immediately – and accelerate rapidly.

The celebration and publicity following the Goodridge decision featured an orchestrated lineup of the 7 couples who were the plaintiffs, and they ranged in age, gender and races. These pairings are no longer novel, however, and the focus will be moved to other combinations.

Polyamory and polygamous challenges to current law will be the first out of the gate. If gender is dispensed as a condition for a married union, why should the number of participants be a restriction? Striking down the number in the union should be relatively easy given our past Mormon history in the U.S., as well as the group arrangements which came out of the 60s. These all give us much real-life experience outside of the traditional marriage arrangement. The push for diversity in our social patterns will also add impetus to the changes to come.

As we move further into the new millennium, Judeo-Christian thinking, already seriously undermined, will give way to more "Progressive" thought. The Roman Catholic sacrament of Matrimony will be subjected to multi-faceted challenges.

Back in the 1960s Dr. Joseph Stanton, the Father of the Pro-Life movement in Massachusetts and widely admired nationally, predicted a Roe v Wade landmark-type decision and founded the Value of Life Committee in 1970. From Jan 22, 1973 to his death in 1998, he fought vigorously to align this nation's thinking and vision, often citing the "slippery slope" argument.

Multi-partner arrangements are a foregone conclusion to being the start of the acceleration down that slope, but marriage within the family may take a little longer. Nothing, however, will prohibit the construction of a legal launching pad. The dismemberment of traditional marriage cleared the way, and supporting scientific studies will start appearing in the media

A prominent national magazine has already run a story of a young lady, estranged as an infant from her father and raised by her divorced mother. She was eventually re- united and bonded strongly with him. She is now seeking marriage with her biological father.

What may have escaped many of our citizenry as we moved into the new millennium is the rise in prominence in society, and the stature accorded to "man's best friend" .It is in this domain where the next truly revolutionary change will occur.

Those actively involved in political opposition to SSM can harken back a dozen years to the protests at the State House on Beacon Hill when a man attracted many foreign reporters, especially those from Asia, with his sign. He was asking the Commonwealth to extend its ruling to interspecies marriage.

Members of the canine species have risen in stature in recent decades, most notably among affluent members of our society. From the President of the U.S. on down, animals, especially canines, are granted family status right down to being flown on vacations with much attention and posh accommodations.

Suburban families have in many instances balked at leash laws, and it is not uncommon to see cars with a large dog's head protruding out from one side or even from the driver's window.

A heated objection was raised in one suburban town for prohibiting residents from walking dogs in the centuries-old town cemetery. A contentious discussion arose at the Board of Selectmen meeting by several residents voicing opposition to the regulation, which they were aware was designed to protect the "sacred" space of the cemetery. Selectmen affirmed this, but disagreeing residents argued that "it was a perfect open space for them" and they should use it "as long as they clean up after their dogs."

The weekly paper in this town earlier in the year had printed only a single obituary, and that was for a member of the canine species. That was a first as usually there are one or more residents who have passed to eternity listed and pictured – human residents, that is.

As absurd as it may now sound to some people, we have to believe that legal arguments for the interspecies arrangement will at some point be made. Just as a quarter century ago dropping the gender restrictions was thought as being ludicrous, a canine legal union is certainly not just possible, but quite probable for these liberals to consider.

Reflecting on the game plan which originally brought us the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts allowing two of the same gender to be married legally, we can look for basically the same modus operandi. Political correctness will be followed totally, and the media can be expected to be completely cooperative. We cannot also forget that "man's best friend" could as easily be known as "woman's best friend."

Just for mental exercise, but certainly aware of what has transpired in this new millennium, it's worth speculating on the specifics of the new Roe/Doe/Goodridge test case to radically alter the country's social contract.. As absolutely deranged as it sounds, it's necessary to gain some understanding of how these activists actually think.

The interspecies test case will best be constructed with the plaintiff being an elderly woman, – not a male – a widow with no surviving children, fairly wealthy, a churchgoer, and with medical problems, which cause hospitalization at times.

There has to be no deviance from political correctness in their scenario. The woman will be blind. Our plaintiff's close companion is her female seeing-eye dog. The widow's desire is to be legally married to this constant companion with all the hospital visitation and inheritance rights given by law to any spouse.

At least one minister has advertised that his church is now allowing people to bring their pets to church to participate in all the ceremonies in the same way people in attendance do. The parish is totally pet-friendly.

This marriage ceremony will be easy to have performed, leaving only the civil acceptance of this union. If the Town Clerk balks at a license, court proceedings will follow, and the test case is underway.

Enough said! God Help Us – And America.

© R.T. Neary

 

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.)