Skip to content

And In The End, The Love You Make, Is Equal To…

06 August 2010 @ 18:18

…whatever you want.

—From the song The End written by Lenin/McAlinsky

Some thoughts on the fantasy known as ‘gay marriage’ and all of the people, issues, and thinking surrounding it…

-In the Comments section of Stacy McCain’s very thoughtful posting of yesterday [which I commented on here], Equality Über Alles, a person identified only at ‘Matt’ makes this comment [he provided no link]:

The beastiality/children/trees etc. argument is silly; only those capable of entering into a legally binding contract and giving consent will ever be able to marry, and nothing will ever change that.

Smitty had this spot-on response:

Stand by for Sharia. Also, while we’re in the business of judicially producing rights ex nihilo[*], the bestiality/children/trees move from silly to probabilistic.

Indeed.  

In 2003, people said Justice Scalia was ‘crazy’ when, in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, he predicted that the decision would inevitably lead to the court’s ruling ‘gay marriage’ constitutional using the 14th Amendment.  Well, it is rather obvious, in light of the decisions that have come out of state and federal courts across the country, that Nino is a prophet.

None of this is surprising.  As I wrote yesterday

Ideology inevitably leads to taking ideas to their logical conclusions outside of reality because ideas are laboratory experiments.  Same sex marriage is one of the stops along the way to the end of opening marriage to every kind and type of combination — logic demands it…and soon the ideologues will, too.

In light of the logic used by Judge Walker, Matt, what is to stop a future judge from ruling that one can marry a close relative, or multiple people, or a minor?  The answer is ‘NOTHING’.  If this can happen, then any combination is possible.

In the 1990’s, when the fight for ‘gay marriage’ began in earnest, many dismissed it chances of success as ’silly’ and ‘crazy’ – the laugh is now on them [and, I admit, moi].

What is to stop the age of consent from being lowered or abolished [especially as we continue to give Sharia more and more legal standing]?

What is to stop incest from being allowed because the court’s logic is that the state cannot define the nature of relationships and still be in compliance with the Equal Protection Clause?

-One quibble with something Stacy wrote responding to a comment by someone saying the Judge in the Proposition 8 case should have recused himself because he is gay.  Here’s his comment:

No need to “go there,” really. It doesn’t matter who the judge is, or how he gets his jollies. Rather the issue is the incompatibility of his arguments with a republican form of government.

In a normal, sane-thinking America that would be absolutely true.  The trouble is we live in a society where the majority of people’s brains have been trained to think in the mutated mode of Leftism.

People like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia [and Robert Stacy McCain] put aside their political and cultural agendas when they examine such issues.  For all Leftists that is not possible: they believe the personal is political, that everything is subject to the demands of their ideological dogma.  People like Judge Walker cannot be trusted to follow the code of proper judicial behavior because Leftists believe that every belief is relative, that there are no absolute truths.  And they believe that their end, the Immanentizing Of The Eschaton, is so important that it must be achieved by any means necessary.

Stacy is correct, however, if he’s merely offering some tactical advice on how to fight this particular battle.  The recusal weapon would not be effective here because the gay judge has ruled — it’s done and in the past now.

-There’s a point I haven’t heard being made by anyone else: I don’t know about you, but my marriage works primarily because my wife is not gay.

____________________________
* OED: ‘out of nothing’

6 Comments
  1. Adobe Walls permalink
    06 August 2010 @ 23:50 23:50

    “Tradition alone . . . cannot form a rational basis for a law.”
    “moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”
    If this ruling stands the above “legal concepts” will apply to constitutional law. I can’t wait to find out how Ginsberg thinks those concepts apply to the 1st and 2nd amendments.

    • bobbelvedere permalink*
      07 August 2010 @ 01:17 01:17

      Adobe: Neither can I – if she lives.

  2. Erich Madden permalink
    07 August 2010 @ 00:50 00:50

    If you want to look at where we are going, just look at Europe, as they are usually a few years ahead of us in the society-is-crumbling department. The age of consent in Spain is 13. Yes, you read that correctly. It is 14 in a number of other countries. Sweden allows marriage between siblings who share a parent, and while sibling marriage is technically illegal in the Netherlands, the law is no longer enforced. Legalizing incestuous marriage is currently being seriously debated in several other European countries, and is considered likely within several years.

    Welcome to the future of America.

    • bobbelvedere permalink*
      07 August 2010 @ 01:18 01:18

      Erich: Depressing, ain’t it. The world has not simply turned upside down, but it’s gone mad.

  3. Mrs. Kissell permalink
    07 August 2010 @ 02:23 02:23

    “Immanentizing Of The Eschaton:”

    For what it might be worth, this is the thesis/conclusion/kerygma of The Rev. Dr. (MD) and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Albert Schweitzer (a German/French Alsatian who with Charles Marie Widor published a famous edition of the complete Organ Works of J.S. Bach) in his seminal “Quest For The Historical Jesus”, originally published in German as “Von Reimaus zu Wrede.”

    Every 50s-60s era seminarian in Europe and the Americas was taught that this thesis is the dernier cris of New Testament exegesis — unless they were taught that it had been surpassed by Bultmann’s reification of the NT as post facto-generated ideology (“kerygma”), an approach supported from another and far more significant direction by Barbara Thiering, who made prominence in the 1990s.

    In the parlance of the day, it was called “realized eschatology.” Probably it is not called that now — one recoils from examining too closely current doings in seminaries in order to avoid trauma and pollution — but whatever it is called — “social justice,” “peace and freedom,” “distributive justice, “liberation theology” — it is the same rubbish: “Immanentizing Of The Eschaton” (realized eschatology).

    In other words, infinitude made finite. Essence made existence. As if.

    Your fundamental premise that libertarianism is a form of moral equivalence (or better yet utopian hallucination) — and therefore, religious, moral and cultural disintegration — is sound and demonstrated by the vehemence of your two interlocutors on this topic (previous post).

    Bill Safire supported your point and created a phrase to name it (which is to say, propagate it): “libertarian conservative.”

    I commend that phrase for sympathetic consideration.

    Importantly, the word utopian derives from a compound Greek word, u + topos, where u is a negative and topos means place. Thus utopian or utopia means no place in the sense of “does not exist anywhere on earth.” This is important to realize and to use in the deflating of droogie ideology (i.e., socialism, communism, racism, afro-mohammedan imperialism, etc.).

    It has no place to exist on earth. It exists solely in the minds of its proponents, as cloud castles. Exhibit A Cloud Castle is “Michelle O” “vacationing” in Spain. Droogies.

  4. Adobe Walls permalink
    07 August 2010 @ 02:37 02:37

    Mrs. K the fallacy I’ve always found with Libertarianism is the same insistence on the Utopian ideals it shares with Marxism and Anarchism. When I was in Jr High (early 70s) I desperately wanted to believe in Anarchism but just couldn’t get past the Utopian perfectibility of man non-sense.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: