To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
Greg Mitchell on media, politics, film, music, TV, comedy and more. "Not here, not here the darkness, in this twittering world." -- T.S. Eliot
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Married to...the Mob?
Two big wins for gay equality and marriage today at the U.S. Supreme Court, but here from Scalia's angry, as usual hypocritical, dissent:
is author of a dozen books (click on covers at right), ;He was the longtime editor of Editor & Publisher. Email: gregmitch34@gmail.com Twitter: @GregMitch
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment