I hate to say I told you so. But we’re on a slippery slope that lots of people predicted.
Legal experts, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, said that once
it’s declared unconstitutional to have laws that disapprove of homosexual sex, we
pull the rug out from our consensus on what marriage is.
They were ridiculed for this position. But they’ve been proven right. Last summer
the Supreme Court struck a blow to marriage. And now, a federal judge has ruled
that key parts of the state of Utah’s law against polygamy are unconstitutional.
In his opinion, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups cited the 2003 Supreme Court
decision, Lawrence vs. Texas, that rendered Texas’s law against homosexual sodomy
unconstitutional.
In Lawrence, moral disapproval of a practice was nearly completely tossed out as
a basis to outlaw it. With that decision, the marriage redefinition sought by gay
activists could really begin. In his dissenting opinion in Lawrence, Justice Scalia said,
“State laws against, bigamy, same sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution….Every
single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.” It’s been just ten
years since the Lawrence decision, and here we are.
Last summer the Supreme Court weakened our protection of marriage, striking
down a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act so that now the federal
government must recognize same sex-marriages in states where it’s legal.
It’s not really surprising that tearing down our marriage laws would accelerate the
slide, and would lead to the overturn of laws against polygamy. Those defending
natural marriage, that is marriage defined as the union between one man and one
woman, have argued throughout this battle that altering that definition, to include
homosexual and lesbian couples, would lead to the institution’s further redefinition.
The polygamy case involves the Brown family from TLC’s reality show, “Sister
Wives.” The program depicts the life of a polygamist family. The ruling doesn’t go so
far as to allow someone to be legally married to more than one spouse. It declares
Utah may no longer criminalize “religious cohabitation” by someone who is already
legally married. This opinion declares unconstitutional the ban on the private,
informal lifestyle polygamy that is prevalent in Utah.
The ban exists because of the known harms polygamy brings to women and
children. Utah wasn’t even allowed to become a state until it banned polygamy.
Where is this decision taking us? For sure, toward the further destruction of
marriage. Coincidentally, just days after Judge Waddoup’s decision, another
federal judge declared Utah’s voter-approved constitutional amendment protecting
marriage unconstitutional.
Russell Moore, President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious
Liberty Commission, said of the ruling, “Sadly, when marriage is elastic enough to
mean anything, in due time it comes to mean nothing.”
We knew this was going to happen. We just didn’t know how quickly.
The slippery slope involves all things constitutional. Consider a response I recently sent to Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post:
Hi Ms. Parker,
Thank you for writing your opinion piece on Phil Robertson. The fact that you have done it is a testament to the validity of the Constitution of the United States under which you have that right without expectation of losing everything you have worked for or morally stand for at the hands of fellow citizens. I am a United States Marine Gunnery Sergeant (Retired) who on many occasion have expressed the logical (if not natural) fact that every service member stands in defense (to the death) of the right of every citizen to be able to speak freely. This is unconditionally applied, even if the things said are deemed hateful by our culture.
In the populist culture of the U.S. (if not the world, and I have reservations about that) those with the power to do so have decided what is and is not appropriate to say. Using this politically correct platform, certain individuals and various self-interested groups employ the anti-hate speech model to prevent others from having an opinion that runs counter to theirs. Should we find it odd that the same constitution that has allowed the proliferation of views opposed to the fundamental (and Biblical) leanings of our society is consistently being used to prevent those with fundamental views from having a voice at all? How enlightened is that?
One of the best things about periods of enlightenment is that fundamental views and values always find a way to allow for advancements (economic, technological, and governmental). Unfortunately, the more advanced (enlightened) mankind thinks we have become, the further we fall into the trap ending enlightened discourse. And, as we know, one way/one size fits all has worked so well in such places (and eras) as Mao’s China, Stalin’s and Lenin’s Soviet Union, Castro’s Cuba, Hitler’s Germany, Hirohito’s/Hideki Tojo’s Japan, Kim Jung Il’s North Korea, and almost every Islamist nation on earth. Dare I say Obama’s America (not that it’s all was caused by Obama) is one in which fundamental constitutional rights are trumped by the one-sided machinations of liberals an pluralists without the opportunity for redress and the federal government is complicit in it. We are no longer on a slippery slope, we’re at the bottom of the hill with the resulting mud slide come to bury us.
I appeal to everyone to research and understand the dynamics of Biblical Fundamentalism as it is not rooted in what I or any person thinks. Its rooted in what God has already established that mankind might make an appropriate choice for ourselves as individuals to influence foundational longevity.
May the same God you attribute to unleashing His fury upon Sodom (whose sins had reached the heights of His Heaven) have mercy on us all, as even I stand imperfect except through His Son Jesus Christ. It is my right to believe and voice it, wouldn’t you agree?
Respectfully,
William Lanier
GySgt USMC (Ret)