The sound of inevitability

Cal Thomas's picture

Given his track record on marital fidelity, former President Bill Clinton is not the person I would consult about “committed, loving relationships.” Clinton used those words in a Washington Post op-ed last week, urging the Supreme Court to overturn the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, which he signed into law.

In his column, Clinton said that 1996 “was a very different time.” No state recognized same-sex marriage and supporters of DOMA “believed that its passage ‘would diffuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.’” Clinton says he now supports same-sex marriage based on justice, equality and the Constitution.

All of the arguments for and against same-sex marriage have been heard and will be heard again on March 26 and 27 when lawyers on both sides of the issue argue two key cases regarding same-sex marriages before the Supreme Court. The justices are expected to rule in June. It will be the Court’s most important social and cultural ruling since its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

What advocates for same-sex marriage should be asked is whether they consider any other human relationship worthy of similar constitutional protection and based on what standard?

The Constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to marry. States, not the federal government, issue marriage licenses. Current laws restrict “underage” marriage, as well as polygamy. If same-sex marriage is approved, what’s to stop polygamists from demanding legal protection and cultural acceptance? Justice Antonin Scalia predicted as much in 2003 in his dissent of the Lawrence v. Texas case, in which the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas.

So I ask, if “fairness” and “equality” are the standard, isn’t it also “unfair” to “discriminate” against polygamists who wish to live in “loving” and “committed” relationships?

Since we are rapidly discarding the rules for living and social order set down in a book found in most motel room drawers, what is to replace it? Opinion polls? Clever legal arguments? Fairness? What exactly does “fairness” mean and who decides what’s fair? Many things may seem “unfair,” but not all can, or should, be addressed by courts.

I am reminded of this exchange between Humpty Dumpty and Alice in Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland”:

“’When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’(‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things ...’”

Last week in Sacramento, Calif., Justice Anthony Kennedy lamented that the Supreme Court is asked to settle too many politically charged issues. Responding to reporters, Kennedy said, “A democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say. And I think it’s of tremendous importance for our political system to show the rest of the world — and we have to show ourselves first — that democracy works because we can reach agreement on a principle basis.”

The states, or Congress, should be allowed to sort out how they wish to define and license marriage, not the Supreme Court.

It doesn’t take a prophet to see where this is headed. A nation that legalizes abortion and applies no stigma to cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births is not about to suddenly discover the moral courage to say “no” to same-sex marriage.

In the 1999 film “The Matrix,” Agent Smith has Neo pinned down on a subway track. As the train approaches, Agent Smith says: “You hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability. It is the sound of your death.”

If, as I suspect, the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, it will be the inevitable result of an increasing number of Americans abandoning the Source of morality and goodness. As Calvin Coolidge said of our Declaration of Independence, “We cannot continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.”

[Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated op-ed columnist, appearing in more than 600 national newspapers. He is the author of more than 10 books and is a FOX News political contributor since 1997. Email Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.] ©2013 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Right you are Cal, DOMA is doomed

Words to live by here "It doesn’t take a prophet to see where this is headed. A nation that legalizes abortion and applies no stigma to cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births is not about to suddenly discover the moral courage to say “no” to same-sex marriage"

And of course now the Clintons are on the gay marriage bandwagon, not just to pander to the 3% of the population that is gay, but to appeal to the liberals and centrists who see gay marriage as a stick in the eye for those stuck-up rightwing bible thumpers. That might account for another 5 or 6% of voters. It all adds up.

Oh you thought the Clintons were retired, didn't ya? Not so. She's unbeatable in 2016. None of Obama's economic mess will stick to her - heck, it doesn't even stick to him for some reason. Looking at the CPAC, I see no one who beats Clinton. Rubio has the best chance, but then again, so did Romney. And you have to subtract the thousands of old Republicans who will die during the next 4 years. Dead Republicans don't vote. And that teenager with a nose ring who asks you if you want fries with that - he or she will be replacing those dead Republican voters. Think about that - kids who are barely old enough to remember Bill Clinton's second election will be voting for President? That doesn't make me comfortable or happy.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
As long as the Repubs carry this torch

They will continue to lose elections. Worried about what Gay folks do, that is. That and a few other social issues....

IF ONLY heteros would stop having Gay kids. :)

Recent Comments