The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Marriage: F&*# God’s Will?

According to Business Insider, “Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts stressed his view that the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide lacked a constitutional basis, writing one of the court’s four dissents on Friday.

“The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent,” Roberts writes in his dissent. “Just who do we think we are?”

“Writing that he has ‘no choice but to dissent,’ Roberts made it clear that his decision was based in the ‘restrained conception of the judicial role,’ rather than a personal view of the definition of marriage. As he writes:

Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.

“Not only is the Constitution clear on the matter, Roberts argues, but also that ‘This Court’s precedents have repeatedly described marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional meaning.’

Additionally, Roberts invokes the founders of the U.S. Constitution, writing, “Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role … They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges.’”

According to Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2nd Edition (1937), marriage is defined as the “state of being married, or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife.”

Even as late as 1989, The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary defined the word “marry” as “to join as husband and wife according to law or custom.”

Following is an etymology of the word “marry”, as well as the “-gamies” as in “monogamy” and “polygamy”.

Sanskrit:

Maryatas –   “individual from or among men or suitors.”

            Maryasri –  “adorned as a lover or suitor”

Marya – [originally something clear or shining] a mark, limit, boundary

marya – “a young man; attached to, true, devoted, dear, suitor.

            Mark, maryada –        “2.  The bounds or limits of morality and propriety, rule or custom

  1.    a covenant, agreement, bond, or contract.
  2. a kind of ring used as an amulet

Maryadabandha – keeping within limits

Maryadavyatikrama – overstepping bounds or limits

Gem or geme – “to marry; to be related”

Gene  or genHi – “to give birth

Copula [Indo-European] – “to be” from PIE root, hes – Eng “is” Ger – “ist”, Latin “est”,

Sanskrit “asti”

Greek:

Meirax – “a young girl or lass”

Maryas – “ a young man”

Gamos – marriage; a sexual union or reproduction; sexually united – thus, such English

words as “monogamy” and “polygamy”.

Koinonia – (m.g. -) marriage’ fr. Koinonos, “common”; “partnership”. “a sharer”,

“companion”

Hedna – “betrothed wife”

Engyesis – “betrothal”

Hebrew:

Laqah – loose term for marriage, but not most common word

Baal or bawaal – “to marry; to rule over”

Latin:

Marita – “a married woman; a wife”

Maritus – “a married man; a husband;” also, adj. “matrimonial; nuptial”

Marito (vt) – “to marry”

Copulo (masc. vt) –   “to couple; join; to unite”

Copula (fem. n) – “cord; string; rope; leash; (fig.) tie, bond

The Ancient Greek legislators considered marriage to be a matter of public interest. This was particularly the case at Sparta, where the subordination of private interests and personal happiness to the good of the public was strongly encouraged by the laws of the city. One example of the legal importance of marriage can be found in the Spartan governing laws, the laws of Lycurgus of Sparta, which required that criminal proceedings be taken against those who married too late (graphe opsigamiou) or unsuitably (graphe kakogamiou), as well as against those who did not marry at all (graphe agamiou). These regulations were founded on the generally recognized principle that it was the duty of every citizen to raise up a strong and healthy progeny of legitimate children to the state.

The woman consecrated the marriage by moving into the suitors living quarters.[34] Once the woman stepped in the house the sunoikein, ‘living together’, legalized the engysis that the suitor and the kyrios made. A dowry was given to the husband from the wife. She often did not have any possessions to give, the father or the kyrios provided a dowry, which was important for the couple

Just what “-gamy” word to the five Supreme Court justices propose to use to describe a homosexual marriage?  It can’t really be defined as a “union” in the sexual sense since both partners possess the same reproductive organs.  Yet that’s exactly the purpose of a homosexual union – the joining of two people of the same sex.

In one day, at the behest of a small, aggressive group of socialist activists representing, at best, 2 percent of the population of the United States, 5 judges overturned the most fundamental and ancient understanding of marriage, one that predates written language.

The most any homosexual “couple” could accomplish is a legal partnership.  More power to them.  But the notion that they could “marry” in the normal sense of the word is absurd.  They could live together, they could carry on a sexual relationship after their fashion.  But they cannot produce off-spring on their own.  Not even modern medical techniques can assist them – one part of the embryo must come from outside their partnership.

The gay activists cited Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the U.S. Constitution:

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several states.

Having already ensured this Civil Right in the main body of the Constitution, the Framers (that’s what they’re generally called, People) were still not satisfied and after the Civil War, included Amendment XIV in the Bill of Rights, specifically Section 1:

…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That’s how the activists, both the Gay Activists and the Judicial Activists got away with it; by declaring marriage a “privilege.”  But privilege is defined as (as Rush Limbaugh noted on his radio program this afternoon): “a right or immunity granted as an advantage or favor especially to some and not others.”

A “privilege” is not a “right”.  Did The Framers trip themselves up?  Why would they write such a thing?  A privilege is also something to be granted or taken away, as opposed to a natural right.  Perhaps they didn’t want to see certain rights abused and regarded certain institutions (like marriage, employment, property ownership) a privilege so that Society would not be burdened by plaintiffs seeking collective redress for an equal right that did not exist but was the responsibility of individual to merit on their own.

The government allowed states to individually regulate the licensing of marriages in order to avoid incestuous unions, underage marriages, and polygamy (which is a very expensive proposition; just ask any Arab), as well as other Biblical abominations and the spreading of sexually-transmitted diseases.

Marriage was intended as a protection for the off-spring of the couple.  God thinks about as much of divorce as He does homosexual unions.  The Bible declares that divorced couples are adulterers.  Well, that’s what it says.  If homosexuals feel isolated, they’re not as alone as they think they are in the eyes of Jesus Christ (apparently).  “God hates divorce; He only permitted it because you’d hardened your hearts,” Jesus told His followers.

But that’s another story.  Right now, the issue is who gets to define words and concepts.  The Supreme Court?  Communists?  Socialists?  Fundamentalist Christians?  The President?  Congress?  The Mainstream Media?  The publishers of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary?  The publishers of Penthouse, Playboy and Hustler magazines?

According to my college training in English and Communications, and particularly the study of the history of dictionaries, usage is said to determine meaning.  However, during The Enlightenment, as Johannes Gutenberg’s invention became more and more popular, academics and scholars discovered a problem in the written word:  the English language was a “modern” Tower of Babble.

There were no rules for clear communications.  English was a muddle of various spellings, confusing punctuation (or lack of), and mixed tenses.  Other countries were finding the same problems and established official schools or academies of language, where linguists laid down the language laws.

Today, the debate still rages.  What defines language:  usage or traditional rules.  Ultimately, usage wins out.  We couldn’t begin to read Old English without substantial college training and Middle English is the bane of every English major who’s ever had to read Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in the original Middle English.

Still, marriage, up until last Friday, retained its traditional meaning, any other meaning being physically impossible.  For those who bewail the prospect of polygamy, unfortunately, that type of marriage does come under the heading of marriage, where a homosexual union does not – and could not, no matter how many times the Supremes bang their gavel.

Polygamy is not going to fly here in the United States; not with a population in which women constitute a 51 percent majority.  Polygamy will probably be considered legalized adultery here in America.  Will women stand for it?  Probably not.

But then again, women fall for living together, jumping into bed sometimes on the first date with no thought as to the consequences to their relationship – and possible children.  Men will have no reason to produce an engagement ring (which is probably what they had in mind all along when they seduced the woman into this most disadvantageous arrangement).

Homosexual partnerships (i.e., marriages) and polygamy will be the last nail in the coffin of civilized society.  All weekend long, we were treated to a rainbow parade of victorious deviants cheering the ultimate demise of civilization, morality and God.

By chance, I was working on downloading a recording of Cabaret, both the Broadway cast recording and the film soundtrack.  Around the same time, I had ripped down a recording of Frank Sinatra’s rendition of Mack, the Knife.  Researching the background of Mack, I discovered it was written by none other than avowed Communist Bertholt Brecht in Berlin in 1928, as part of the Threepenny Opera.

On Youtube, I found an original recording of Brecht singing Mack, the Knife in German.  He sounded remarkably like Joel Grey, of the play and the movie.  So, then I researched (and ordered) the book on which Cabaret was based:  The Berlin Diaries, by homosexual author Christopher Isherwood.  Isherwood’s book begins in 1929, when Brecht flourished as a playwright, author, and opera producer.

Mack the Knife was what was known as a moritat or  “murder ballad.” A moritat (from mori meaning “deadly” and tat meaning “deed”) was performed by strolling minstrels in the Middle Ages.  “Die Moritat von Mackie Messer,” [Mack the Knife] was composed by Kurt Weill with lyrics by Brecht for ‎The Threepenny Opera, or in German, Die Dreigroschenoper.

In The Threepenny Opera, the moritat singer with his street organ introduces and closes the drama with the tale of the deadly Mackie Messer, or Mack the Knife, a character based on the dashing highwayman Macheat in John Gay’s  The Beggar’s Opera (who was in turn based on the historical thief Jack Sheppard). The Brecht-Weill version of the character was far more cruel and sinister, and has been transformed into a modern anti-hero.

Did Isherwood attend Brecht’s Die Dreigroschenoper (The Threepenny Opera)?  I was wondering if I might find a reference in his book of short stories, The Berlin Diaries.  Since the books only arrived today, I have not yet discovered any coincidence.

But I did encounter something else in the introduction to the book by writer Armistead Maupin (who refers to a man named “Christopher” as his “husband”; it was unclear whether he meant Isherwood or some other man).  Maupin wanted to interview Isherwood for a 1985 article in The Village Voice.  By that time, Isherwood was dying of cancer.  This is what he told Maupin regarding the AIDs epidemic (then ravaging Isherwood’s home city of San Francisco):

“Though struggling with cancer himself,” Maupin wrote in the intro to The Berlin Stories, “he offered fighting words to the legions of young men already dying of AIDS:”

They’re told by their relatives that it’s God’s will and all that sort of thing.  And I think they have to be very tough with themselves and really decide which side they’re on.  You know, fu*& God’s will.  God’s will must be circumvented, if that’s what it is.

Maupin went on to add:

It was just that kind of ‘straight’ talk that made Isherwood so loved.  It embarrassed some of his more “discreet” Hollywood friends (most of them younger than he) but it was a battle cry for some of us – and for once, miraculously, it was coming from an elder.  More than anyone of his generation, Isherwood reminded us that gay self-respect came with its own noble lineage.

So that’s what it comes down to, the Gay Pride, Supreme Court ruling “rainbow” message about marriage:

F— God’s Will?

That’s some message.  When it comes time for them to be judged, what do the Supremes think God’s ruling on them will be?

Advertisements
Published in: on June 29, 2015 at 5:38 pm  Comments (1)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://belleofliberty.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/the-supreme-courts-ruling-on-marriage-f-god/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

One CommentLeave a comment

  1. i at least thought that plural type marriages would have been legalized first After all it consist of persons of the opposite sex to marry which fits the historic terms more closely. This then should be the next step. I’ll talk to my wife about a third partner to be introduced into our marriage in the near future, maybe a young lass 21 years of age….ho ho ho.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: