no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Gay marriage debate: Will we erase the boundaries that have guided humanity for generations?
Cal Thomas

By Cal ThomasPublished April 30, 2015FoxNews.com
Facebook83 Twitter31 livefyre502 Email Print
Supreme Court Gay Mar_Cham640360.jpg

April 27, 2015: Sean Varsho, 28, of Chicago, left, and Brandon Dawson, 26, of Warrenton Va., have been waiting in line for the past three days for a seat for Tuesday's Supreme Court hearing on gay marriage. The opponents of same-sex marriage are urging the court to resist embracing what they see as a radical change in society's view of what constitutes marriage. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

In 2-1/2 hours of oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked the right question: whether it is appropriate for the Court to discard a definition of marriage that "has been with us for millennia," adding, "it's very difficult for the court to say, 'Oh, well, we know better.' "

Kennedy, who is regarded as the swing v**e on this and many other controversial issues, may not answer his own question the way proponents of traditional marriage wish, but the question is not rhetorical. Should this court, or any court, re-define and force the states to accept a new definition of marriage that will not only affect same-sex couples, but open the door to other petitioners, for example, polygamists, who wish to "marry" more than one person?

If human history, tradition, the Bible, the Constitution and biology are to be ignored or re-defined, on what basis do courts say "no" to anything?

If human history, tradition, the Bible, the Constitution and biology are to be ignored or re-defined, on what basis do courts say "no" to anything? If "e******y" and "fairness" are the new standard, one might as well have no standard at all because such emotional appeals could justify any relationship or form of behavior.

The problem for traditionalists -- especially those who believe scripture is the sole authority in such matters -- is that in an increasingly secular society where younger people are less attuned to appeals about an Authority higher than themselves, how can they be persuaded that same-sex marriage is a bridge too far? After all, don't they "know" gay people, whom they regard as wonderful and kind? That "standard" becomes subjective and when it reaches the level of personal feelings it becomes a shifting boundary that is drawn in invisible ink rather than set in stone.

Only two years ago, in the case of "U.S. v. Windsor," which argued whether the IRS could give federal tax benefits to all legally married homosexuals, regardless of state law, Justice Kennedy warned it was wrong for courts to "put a thumb on the scales and influence a state's decision as to shape its own marriage laws." And now this court could do precisely that.

Chief Justice John Roberts told the plaintiff's attorneys on Tuesday, "But if you prevail here, there will be no more debate. ... People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to v**e on it than if it's imposed on them by the courts."

Yes, they do, which is why, as Justice Antonin Scalia noted; only 11 states have done so by a "v**e of the people or the legislature."

To the surprise of conservatives, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer echoed Kennedy's concern: "The opposite rule has been the law everywhere for thousands of years.... And, suddenly, you want nine people outside the b****t box to require states, that don't want to do it, to change what you've heard ... change what marriage is to include gay people."

That is precisely what the advocates for same-sex marriage want, just as the pro-a******n movement wanted the same court 42 years ago, in "Roe v. Wade," to discard state laws protecting the unborn. That 1973 decision continues to stir controversy and should be a lesson to the court not to make a similar mistake with marriage.

Here is the real problem: If people worship pleasure and material things, they are more likely to get leaders who give them what they want instead of what they need to hold society together. If we erase the boundaries that have guided humanity for generations, we weaken our society.

A verse from the Book of Judges seems to define America in 2015, as we sink deeper into a moral and cultural morass: "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." (Judges 21:25)

Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist. He joined Fox News Channel in 1997 as a political contributor. His latest book is "What Works: Common Sense Solutions for a Stronger America" is available in bookstores now. Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribune.com.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

The definition of marriage has, since the founding of our country been based on the teaching of the New Testament. They can call homosexual relationships marriage but it isn't according to the definition we have always used. I am against the all inclusive new definition but really don't care. Let the good Lord judge. If you have children instill your values. I will not change my values because these punk libs will insist I am a homophobe . Wh**ever that is.

fiatlux

Though I may believe in and abided by the male and female concept of marriage, our present idea of marriage is almost an entirely different species from that of 2000 years ago and earlier. If we want to make the Bible as the legal argument for what is a marriage, then we must include concubines, women as property, and adultery as the norm to secure money, property, and prestige.

If we want to say that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, then concubines, women as property, and adultery as the norm should be included in our definition of marriage. How can we pick and choose or change such conceptions?

dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)

Cal Thomas is a level headed guy and I enjoy his writing when I come across it. It amazes me that over 98% of our population gets exercised over what the other 1%+ does. If I'm a guy and I don't want to marry another guy I don't have to. If I'm a homosexual guy and I'm in love with another homosexual guy I should be able to enter some sort of agreement, acceptable to society, that says that he and I are a legally recognized entity entitled to any and all rights conferred by society on any heterosexual couple who were married in a church ceremony. Period. That malarky about opening the door to marrying your German Shepherd or 6 other people is total trash and isn't even suitable for discussion.

eden

In the first place the statement that Cal thomas "is America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist is not supported by any facts I have been able to dig up but since he is promoted as such by Fox News (?) that is hardly a surprise. The problem with the concern of "erasing social boundaries that have guided humanity for generations" is that social boundaries in the form of religious persecution, torture, genocide have failed to keep the people down and instead of acting as a guide have been responsible for the ens***ement and misery of generations. The religious right may be perturbed by the idea that a lifestyle they abhor is about to be institutionalized but then the same mentality was behind the horror of allowing s***es the right to be free and horror of all horrorshows...to v**e. Namely the horror was the fear of change and loss of control and entitlement. Little has changed.

fiatlux

As an argument against gay marriage--no, of course not. As a general argument against the "slippery slope" idea, of course. Where or why do we stop? It is a legitimate question. And my cats are waiting with baited breath for your answer.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I only referenced the definition of marriage not the legality. The definition has always been the union between a man and a women. Jesus never condoned adultery or the treatment of women as property.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I agree wholeheartedly. Civil unions with the same rights no problem. Changing the definition of words not a fan. Besides the gays have an agenda, to force us to accept and condone their life style as normal. Sorry. Not going to do it.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Gotta go. Fights coming on. Go Manny. I think your in trouble but I am pulling for him.

elk6x6 Loc: In the bushes by your house.

All of the arguments for Gay Marriage can be equally applied to multiple person marriage.

Why can't 3 or more people love each other and get married? Seriously.

fiatlux

But the reference as to who can get married and the parameters of marriage goes back always to the OT. If so, then the other rules duly apply. Or why not? Jesus never stated marriage was between as man and a woman, though he did comment on divorce, which is mostly overlook by the the vast amount of churches.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

As a Christian the New Testament with the teaching of Christ are what I try to live by.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

eden

Yes why not? It is done in secret anyway.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

You gotta be kidding me. Jamie Fox singing the Star spangled Banner before the fight. My bad this dude can sing. Now I do have to go.