The children, what can’t we do “for the children”? No one would dare to oppose legislation protecting the young ones, protecting our future. Right, and as well we should, because with gay marriage there will be fewer of them to care about.
This is also the first time procreation entered into legislative consciousness here, unfortunately, not on the side of marriage, not as a fundamental principle of marriage, but as a side effect of whatever else happens to whoever else, and gays are entrusted with picking up the pieces. I’m a bit overdramatic here, of course, gays do not just pick up strays, they adopt after rigorous checks and they probably do an okay job, but, more importantly, the opinion mentions that gays can be biological parents themselves.
Ironically, their children would be born out of wedlock here, with surrogate mothers or fathers. They might provide nice homes for these children to grow up but these kids’ relationships with their missing biological parents will be messed up forever, but that is probably not a very important consideration given everything else that will be totally screwed up in their lives.
The court’s job, therefore, is to protect their fragile psyche and convince everyone, the children themselves and the rest of the society, that the situation is totally normal and natural. In pursuit of liberty the court decided to tell everyone how to feel about gay marriages. It didn’t prescribe any punishment, for now, but it’s determined to reshape social attitudes of the general public. What has it got to do with liberty? Beats me, it’s just the opposite of what liberty means.
The opinion says that right to bring up children is central to the liberty protected by the constitution, but it sidesteps the procreation part of it altogether. Adoption is just as good, the court seems to imply. Is it, though? Just how many unwanted children are there? Is it enough to cover all gay families desirous to have kids? Is it encouraging people to give up their own children in exchange for rewards of some kind? Shouldn’t public policies be directed at reducing the number of abandoned children instead?
Once again, if biological parents are unwilling or incapable of bringing up their children themselves there must be something wrong with all parties involved, including children themselves, because it’s not an auspicious birth and it wouldn’t be awarded to souls with good karma. It’s not an argument for the Supreme Court to heed, of course, but we should keep it in mind ourselves. Children only appear to start with a clean slate but, in fact, they carry with them the weight of their karma enough to last for the whole life.
I’m not sure if gays can handle it. They are willing to, and they assume that all children are innocent, and they try their best, I suppose, but it’s a long term experiment and the real effects might not manifest for decades. We don’t know what a generation that has grown up in gay families and in the atmosphere of acceptance of gay marriage would look like. Will they procreate themselves? Will they become responsible parents? Personally, I’m inclined to think that they will not consider procreation as a duty and as a natural purpose of marital relationships. They won’t have examples and role models to give value to this kind of behavior. Even in this court’s best moment procreation and raising children is seen as a right of parents, not as duty of everyone to the society. I mean if they fancy having children the law won’t stand in their way but it still puts personal desires above duties.
Atheists have a huge problem with procreation even without gay marriage. Look at these two maps, see how they perfectly complement each other:
First map shows birth rates and the second levels of irreligion. Somewhat higher birth rate levels in France and UK are due to immigrant population, largely Muslim, not the natives, but that’s a topic for another day.
In the last paragraph on child protection aspect of court’s reasoning there are finally words about procreation: “An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State. In light of precedent protecting the right of a married couple not to procreate, it cannot be said the Court or the States have conditioned the right to marry on the capacity or commitment to procreate. The constitutional marriage right has many aspects, of which childbearing is only one.”
As expected, marriage is for the pleasure of the participants, not a duty, and certainly not a religious duty. There’s no reason to impose any kinds of limits on one’s pleasure, and one can always demand it to be called marriage, can’t really fault the court here, it’s just the sign of our times. This particular die was cast when the court ruled for the right to contraception all those years ago.
Fourth principle cited by the court is about social order. They start with a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville: “There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is so much respected as in America.” Humility is obviously not this court’s forte. It apparently operates on the assumption that the US sets standards of what is good, bad, strong, respected etc for the rest of the world. If Americans say their marriage is the strongest and the most respected, we need to adjust our own measurements so that ties of Indian marriage, for example, do not look as strong and respected as those of Americans. It’s not really difficult – Indians still practice arranged marriages, which are inferior to true marriage of love, even if between gay people.
I don’t know what to say here – they want to see the world this way and nothing can stop them. Everyone, not just this court, not just the Americans, insist on their views being superior, and they implore everyone else to share in their self-appreciation. Displays of their confidence in their own righteousness are everywhere, it’s the most visible aspect of their public persona, or, perhaps a necessary defensive mechanism to hide their utter failure to lead truly righteous lives. Whatever, we should avoid these people like a plague, their attitudes to life are infectious and even contemplating them can be polluting, so let’s move on.
Maybe the court is onto something when it says that marriage carries its values into the whole civic polity. They hope that gay marriage will improve the society, of course, but it’s not court’s gamble to make, it’s a policy decision best left to people themselves and this objection will come up in the dissent, too.
Next they get to the benefits. Society pledges to support marriages, they say, so gays deserve the benefits, too. There’s a long list there, from taxes to health insurance, about a dozen items. Somehow without these benefits the liberty to live with gay partners is incomplete. But it’s more than just material benefits, the court says, lack of recognition brings intolerable instability into same-sex relationships, and it’s demeaning. It imposes stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by the Constitution.
Again, it’s not court’s job to legislate public perception of gay marriage. Maybe legalizing it will change people’s opinion, maybe it won’t, certainly not for Christians who will become only more resentful of the state intrusion into their lives. Now they have to publicly respect gay marriages even if it goes against everything they believe in. The effect on religions is covered in dissent as well.
At this point the opinion turns to legal justification for the recognition of the right to marry the person of the same sex, this section is quite long and I don’t have the energy for it right now.