The issue of so-called \u201csame-sex marriage\u201d will soon come before the Supreme Court.\u00a0 I am no betting man, but if I was, I would gamble every dime to my name that before long, \u201cgay marriage\u201d will be the law of the land.\u00a0 I would further bet that those right-leaning politicians and their allies within the \u201calternative\u201d media who have insisted upon preserving the heterosexual character of marriage will succumb to a deafening silence not long after that.<\/p>\n
In the annals of the human race, it is not often that we witness the particularities of time and culture giving way to a consensus on a moral issue.\u00a0 Yet whether understood as an historical institution or as a spiritual and moral ideal, there is no group of people the world over that has failed to recognize marriage for <\/em>the intrinsically heterosexual union that it is.<\/p>\n But alas, leave it to our generation to see to it that this state of affairs doesn\u2019t last.\u00a0 The problem is that it will indeed succeed at detonating \u201cthe general bank\u2026of nations and of ages,\u201d as Burke famously described the wisdom of \u201cthe species.\u201d \u00a0<\/p>\n It isn\u2019t just that leftist activists and the Democratic Party are resolved to make their dream of \u201csame-sex marriage\u201d a reality.\u00a0 More importantly\u2014and more tellingly\u2014it is that the proponents of traditional marriage have no one who is willing to fight on their behalf.<\/p>\n As the base of the GOP reevaluates its party in the wake of the losses it suffered last month, it is imperative that among the realizations at which Republican voters arrive is the realization that Republican rhetoric on this issue is just that. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n To this some may object that, in fact, Republicans have <\/em>done more than talk.\u00a0 After all, Republicans have advocated a constitutional amendment expressly defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, right?\u00a0 What about that?\u00a0 This question is best met by another: Yes, what about that?\u00a0 <\/em>We no longer hear about this proposal to amend the Constitution because it was never, and was never meant to be, anything but a gimmick, albeit one with strategic value.<\/p>\n Republicans have always known that their amendment proposal had zero chance of gaining any traction, much less achieving passage.\u00a0 But in advancing it, they could temporally appease their base while eluding the real work necessary to stop \u201cgay marriage.\u201d<\/p>\n While it controlled both chambers of Congress and the presidency, the GOP most certainly could have done much in this arena.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n According to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all those cases, and only those cases, for which Congress makes allowances.\u00a0 The provision states that the Court\u2019s authority is \u201cunder such regulations as the Congress shall make.\u201d\u00a0 Translation: If a Republican-dominated Congress didn\u2019t want for liberal judges to declare a constitutional right to \u201cgay marriage\u201d (or abortion, or suicide, or interspecies loving, etc.), then it would have needed to have done nothing other than invoke this Constitutional provision.\u00a0 As the late Sam Francis remarked: \u201cWith a stroke of the congressional pen, \u2018judicial activism\u2019 could be ended [.]\u201d<\/p>\n But it isn\u2019t just that Republican politicians have failed to resist the imposition upon the country of \u201cgay marriage.\u201d They have actually encouraged <\/em>it.<\/p>\n Republicans routinely express support for \u201ccivil unions\u201d for homosexuals.\u00a0 However, when marriage is considered just one more type of secular association\u2014as it must be so considered from the perspective of our secular government\u2014then in what, pray tell, could the difference between a marriage and a civil union be said to consist?\u00a0 From talk radio show hosts to Beltway politicians, Republican critics of \u201cgay marriage\u201d are at pains to reassure gays that all of the benefits that they would reap from marriage are just as surely secured to them by way of civil unions. The only difference between these two contracts, such Republicans explain, is the name.<\/p>\n But what\u2019s in a name?\u00a0 If the difference between a civil union and a marriage is only nominal, then there is no real difference at all. <\/em><\/p>\n In the very near future, homosexuals will have found themselves a constitutional right to marry other homosexuals.\u00a0 When this happens, the country can thank not just the left-wing activists who fought tirelessly for it.<\/p>\n It can thank Republicans as well. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The issue of so-called \u201csame-sex marriage\u201d will soon come before the Supreme Court.\u00a0 I am no betting man, but if I was, I would gamble every dime to my name that before long, \u201cgay marriage\u201d will be the law of the land.\u00a0 I would further bet that those right-leaning politicians and their allies within the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":399,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-662","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n