It was no surprise to me that the U.S. Supreme Court recently gave same-sex “marriage” a big boost. I knew it was coming. I’ve noticed a pattern when it comes to culture-changing Supreme Court decisions. First, the media spends at least 10 years “re-educating the public” on a “social justice issue.” This usually features stories about people who have been “victimized” by “unjust laws” or “bigotry.”
Then states, municipalities and lower courts weigh in on one side or the other. Finally, one or more court cases make it “all the way to the Supreme Court” whose rulings are typically on the side of social revolution. This has happened in the cases of racial segregation, pornography, abortion and now, so far, gay “marriage.” (The Supreme Court was right on the first one, but dead wrong on the last three.)
Most people don’t seem to question the Supreme Court’s right to make these momentous decisions, though they should. The United States is supposed to be a democracy. Therefore, its citizens should determine the nation’s destiny. The last time I checked, Supreme Court judges are not elected. The president appoints them. Therefore, they are not “answerable to the people.” In fact, after being appointed, they have life tenure. This would not be a problem if the court only interpreted laws in a fairly narrow sense (its role as defined by the Constitution). However, often the court has, in effect, created laws through its “imaginative” interpretation of the Constitution (e.g., Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the U.S., is considered the law of the land). Elected officials, not the Supreme Court, should be making laws concerning marriage, abortion, pornography, etc.
Secondly, no human power, democratic or otherwise, has the right to overrule God’s law. For example, no government has the right to decide that murder should be legalized, because murder is contrary to God’s law (or Natural law). Marriage, between one man and one woman, predates government. No human power has the right to “redefine marriage” since no human institution created marriage. If any government or court would “redefine marriage” (by declaring that any two adults can marry or by stating that laws which defend traditional marriage are unconstitutional) it would, in effect, arrogantly claim the right to change its very nature.
Thirdly, contrary to what many people seem to think, the Supreme Court is not omniscient or infallible. In highly secularized America, the court has assumed the historical role of the Church regarding moral and cultural issues. Most people would say that the Pope, as Vicar of Christ, is not infallible. Does it make more sense to believe that a body of nine lawyers is infallible?
The court’s recent rulings that boost the cause of same-sex “marriage” are a low point in American history. They are no “victory for human rights.” Regardless of what the court has decided, or may decide, on this issue, same-sex partnerships, or whatever you want to call them, are not marriages! It is fine for the court to protect homosexuals from hate crimes or unjust discrimination, but laws restricting marriage to heterosexuals simply do not fit into that latter category.