Are Buttigieg’s Latest Airline Rules Going to Get People Killed?
These Ugly, Little Schmucks Need to Face Consequences
Top Biden Aides Didn't Have Anything Nice to Say About Karine Jean-Pierre: Report
The Terrorists Are Running the Asylum
Biden Responds to Trump's Challenge to Debate Before November
Oh Look, Another Terrible Inflation Report
Senior Sounds Off After USC Cancels Its Main Graduation Ceremony
There's a Big Change in How Biden Now Walks to and From Marine...
US Ambassador to the UN Calls Russia's Latest Veto 'Baffling'
Trump Responds to Bill Barr's Endorsement in Typical Fashion
Another State Will Not Comply With Biden's Rewrite of Title IX
'Lack of Clarity and Moral Leadership': NY Senate GOP Leader Calls Out Democratic...
Liberals Freak Out As Another So-Called 'Don't Say Gay Bill' Pops Up
Here’s Why One University Postponed a Pro-Hamas Protest
Leader of Columbia's Pro-Hamas Encampment: Israel Supporters 'Don't Deserve to Live'
OPINION

Same-Sex Marriage: Too Big a Job for the Court

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

A grand misconception is embedding itself in the public brain: To wit, the Supreme Court soon will clue us in to the true meaning of marriage.

Nope. No way. Isn't so. Can't be so.

Advertisement

This despite the court's intention, announced last week, to decide whether gays and lesbians merit constitutional entitlement to wed. I am obliged to note the discrepancy between, on the one hand, what commentators blatantly suggest is going on here and, on the other hand, what the most solemn assemblage of judges you ever set eyes on has actual power to do.

The justices of the Supreme Court have no power to recast marriage as something other than civilization, especially the civilization of the West, in which we live and move and have our being, has forever understood it to be. That thing is the union of man and woman, conceived as opposite, yet complementary, beings.

The legal union of man and man, of woman and woman, howsoever loudly clamored for, fails to meet the test for conformity to the institution our judges purport to examine. To fail to meet that particular test isn't to say anything at all against those who don't pass. Their guilt, if any, lies in taxing the nation's attention span with claims for the right of trespass on the larger community's cultural pasturage. It could be said these people have hoodwinked themselves.

The honorable justices have no more power to transform the venerable institution of marriage than has, say, an academy of music to declare that a harmonica is a bull fiddle.

What the court has power to say is that -- whoopee! -- we've invented a whole new institution, called marriage by courtesy, if not by right. That's because, thanks to us on the court, we've got side-by-side marital institutions. One accommodates the court claimants -- those who want to marry whomever they like. The other institution keeps up the original arrangements, reflecting so far as possible the realities of Creation; man and woman as generators and transmitters of life, each bestowing distinct blessings on their children.

Advertisement

The overhaul of marriage, if it comes to pass, would be a vast task, requiring brass and presumption of a sort rarely exhibited in a Western democratic setting. The court may or may not be up to such an enterprise. The fact is that marriage -- a sacrament in Christian terms; "instituted of God," in the language of the Book of Common Prayer -- is a constituent element of the life Christianity, as well as Judaism, views as suitable for the children of God.

Now if you're minded to say, "Children of God, my hind foot!," as many these days are minded, you likely don't mind dismantling any institution built on old-fashioned religious principles and thus understood as transcendent -- surpassing human judgment; out there in Reality, whether we like it or not.

Among these old-fashioned principles: the preeminence of the family structure, with father and mother at its head, a pair joined by sacred pledges -- "to love and to cherish, till death do us part ... "

It ought to be said -- it ought to be borne down on, hard -- that such are the premises the West always has bought into. Wrong ones? Outdated as a calico bonnet? Who says so, huh? On what basis? With what authority?

With zero authority, it is fair to say. Arguments against understanding marriage in the "traditional" sense seem based mostly on the very modern, very subjective notion that I -- got that? first-person "I" -- can say about sex whatever I want to, make whatever claims I like, apply to myself whatever rules I like, if any at all, never mind what some primitive Near Eastern god may have said about the matter long centuries ago.

Advertisement

Modern confusion about sex is in fact a reversion to the primitivism that existed before the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob undertook to clarify His intentions concerning human life and its duties. Into the clamorous disorders of the present day various moderns want to drag, of all bodies, the U. S. Supreme Court for a reading, a re-interpretation, a new take on The Way Things Ought to Be.

Are we thrilled yet?

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos