U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., issued the following statement on June 26:
“Loving families across our great nation have been made whole today, as the Supreme Court upheld the core principle that all persons must be treated equally under the law. By striking down as unconstitutional the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that limited federal marriage benefits to opposite sex couples, the Supreme Court has affirmed that there is no place for discrimination in America based on sexual orientation. Government should not interfere in the ability of men and women to marry the person they love.”
President Obama agreed, by declaring:
“I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it. We are a people who declared that we are all created equal – and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”
Think about the wording of what these two leaders have endorsed. And then ask with me just how on Earth this fails to endorse all other kinds of marriage.
To quote Sen. Cardin:
“There is no place for discrimination in America based on sexual orientation.”
That should be an absolute boon for those alternate Mormons who still believe in polygamy – as well as the polyandrous (women who would like to have more than one husband at a time).
Then, consider the great joy of members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, which was allowed to march – men with their small boy lovers – in gay parades in both New York and San Francisco.
Among the many other alternate sexual orientations that may well be counted upon to cite this Supreme Court decision are:
- The incestuous;
- Necrophiliacs (providing they properly and healthily preserve the corpses);
- Zoophiliacs, who practice bestiality (providing this form of sexual expression is applied only to freely consenting beasts).
The American Family Association Online has noted that the American Psychiatric Association has published 30 sexual orientations, beginning with apotemnophilia (sexual arousal associated with a stump of an amputee), asphyxophilia (sexual gratification from oxygen deprivation) and autogenophilia (sexual arousal of a man by perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman).
Consider the statement on this Supreme Court issue by Justice Antonin Scalia, which he read from the bench:
“It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race. … declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency. … In the majority’s telling, this story is black and white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. …
“When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it ‘demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.’ …
“It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here – when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’ hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will ‘confine’ the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
“The Constitution neither requires nor forbids our society to approve of same-sex marriage, much as it neither requires nor forbids us to approve of no-fault divorce, polygamy, or the consumption of alcohol.”
How often in U.S. Supreme Court history has there been any judicial opinion quite as colorful as Justice Scalia’s vivid denunciation of what he termed “legalistic argle-bargle”?