I consider that when everyone has to say that two men whose claim to the term rests on the act of homosexual sodomy are "married," the sky has fallen. When people seriously suggest that something else has to happen before we have reached a "sky is falling" scenario, this tells me that our world has gone insane...
6 comments:
Thanks, Bill. The whole thing is very depressing. There is some reason to hope that the decision is a "bridge too far" and will be overturned by the Supremes. (Anthony Kennedy will presumably consult his crystal ball to decide how far the right to define the Mystery of Being really extends and whether one is allowed in the process to impinge upon other adults' rights to define their Mystery of Being or not.)
But what I wish we could say is that the people of America will not stand for this. Nor would such a "not standing for" need to be a matter of armed resistance. Since it is positive action that is demanded, passive resistance would do very well. If we had mass resistance on the part of Justices of the Peace and governors and prosecutors who said that they would do nothing to force the JP's to "marry" homosexual couples, the federal government could not possibly take care of all of this in the service of some Royal Decree handed down by SCOTUS. If we had employers all over the country saying that they would not give married benefits to the partners of homosexual employees, and if, again, the state officials would not prosecute, we could have a very effective, completely non-violent, revolt against any such decree.
This is what _should_ have happened in Massachusetts at the state level, but didn't.
This is what _should_ have happened...
I can only surmise that people don't resist because they don't see the urgency of the matter. Or they don't care. Or they decide it's easier just to go along to get along. Cowardice.
There's one more link in the chain of causes: The pernicious idea that the "rule of law" requires that governors and everybody else adopt as "the law" whatever the courts decree. Mitt Romney was genuinely opposed in some sense or other to the Mass. Supreme Court's decision, but he considered himself ethically _bound_ to go along with it once he'd exhausted all options of pleading with the court. Otherwise, he could have instigated a constitutional crisis in Massachusetts by ordering that no marriage licenses be issued to homo couples. But there is an absolute _terror_ of doing any such thing and indeed a sense of _honor_ among elected officials about not doing anything of the sort. The courts can make up stuff that _cannot possibly_ be in the constitution, that it is the most incredible joke to imagine is required by the constitution, and everyone will solemnly go out and stand on their heads in the name of the "rule of law."
Once that is in place, it really comes down to just the ordinary people. Individual by individual, they have to be willing to be punished for resisting, because their state officials will not stand with them. That's much harder for the ordinary folks. And it's difficult to get many conservatives to believe that there could ever be a time for civil disobedience. They, too, have it ingrained that it is their duty to follow "the law," however insane and perverted.
It's also very hard to _organize_ any such resistance, so everyone feels like he stands alone. And in fact, since the situations come up on an ad hoc basis, each one really is unique. It's not like every employer has _right now_ someone demanding to receive marriage benefits for his homosexual "partner," and most of the business owners who are conservative just hope and pray it won't come up. This leaves the ones for whom it already has come up pretty isolated. They have to stand alone.
What was it Jackson said of the Court? Something to the effect that "they have made their decision, now let them enforce it"? Without leadership from people like Romney in executive positions, especially from a president should we finally get one with the right convictions, I doubt I doubt citizens will do much at all. I hope I'm wrong.
I want to look soberly at what people face and to put myself in their shoes. My husband has tenure. How many professions even have such a thing as tenure? Precious few. What if my entire family faced the loss of the job of the only breadwinner, or what if we faced the destruction of a family-owned business that was our only source of income, if my husband refused to cave in on one of these things? It would be very hard. I think people _should_ stand up, but it's so, so tempting to make rationalizations: "Well, it _is_ called 'marriage' by the state now. That's all I would mean when I used the word." Or "The Bible does say to obey every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake. They are living in sexual sin, but I'm not making them do it by paying for spousal benefits. It's their responsibility. They're the ones committing the sin, not me."
If the alternative is having serious trouble bringing home the groceries, losing everything you've worked for all your life, such justifications start to look pretty plausible.
I understand it, and I have a vivid enough imagination to be able to see what it would be like. And how much worse it would be, too, if the people in one's church weren't supportive but pulled on the other side.
That's why I feel so furiously angry at the liberals for their evil totalitarianism. They just don't care. They _want_ to create such pressures. They _want_ to grind people's consciences under, to threaten them with loss of livelihood, with crushing, harassing lawsuits, with punishments small and great, day in and day out, until all of society affirms what the liberals tell them to affirm. That's what they are aiming for: To eradicate "heteronormativity." It's terrifying, really, and truly evil. I wish that all such petty tyrants could be sent off to live on an island somewhere and trouble the rest of us no more. And that's in my kinder moments.
Real good comment. I'm trying to find something to pick at, but can't.
Post a Comment