“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
― George Orwell
You remember the movie, “Glory” about a black regiment from Massachusetts during the civil war. Right after that movie came out, Saturday Night Live did a skit on the imaginary first gay regiment. Of course there was not a gay regiment during the civil war. The skit was fiction and comedy. It was also a kind of fantasy for liberals. In their minds, there may not have been a gay regiment, but there should have been. After all, for them, people who have unnatural sexual relations with people of the same sex are no different than people who have a different skin color. If the history were not so well known, liberals would fulfill their fantasy and quietly rewrite a gay regiment into the history books.
Does that sound like an outlandish charge? Consider this, then. While they are not so blatant, the gay agenda loves to make educated and not-so-educated guesses about the sexual inclinations of famous historical figures, everyone from Alexander the Great to Isaac Newton.
But it is not just ancient history that they love to rewrite. Recent articles about courts striking down the traditional marriage law in VA state, “The high court last year narrowly ruled that the federal government could not deny married same-sex couples benefits under the equal protection and due process clause in the Constitution.”
I believe they are referring to the Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Except that is not the basis for the court’s ruling. DOMA was struck down on the grounds of federalism. The federal government could not deny benefits because they could not define marriage at the federal level. The definition of marriage is a state right. It is only up to the states to pass laws regarding marriage. At least that is what the court said at that time.
Now activist judges and liberals are turning that ruling on its head. After ruling that the federal government has no right to pass laws on marriage, they are now saying that this very ruling shows that states have no right to pass laws to define traditional marriage. They are conveniently cherry picking the ruling to suit their own agenda.
How do we know this is not what the Supreme Court intended? They had an opportunity in the separate case against CA Prop. 2 to explicitly strike down a traditional marriage law and apply it to all marriage laws in all states. Instead they kicked the can down the road. They ruled that the defendants had no standing and allowed the law to be nullified without getting dirt on their hands.
Even though the Supreme Court passed up the chance to socially engineer our culture and throw away thousands of years of tradition, the possibility to rule against traditional marriage laws is still there. What kind of flimsy logic would they use? Something probably based on the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the Equal Protection Clause. It states that all laws must be equally applied to all citizens.
The Fourteenth Amendment was part of the Reconstruction Amendments passed after the Civil War in order to eliminate slavery and protect the citizenship rights of the former slaves. (After passage, most of the provisions in these amendments were promptly ignored ushering in the era of segregation, especially in the South.) At that time, if you would have suggested that this amendment would be used to destroy marriage as we know it by allowing those who practice unnatural sexual relations to marry, you would have been locked up in the local loony bin. There is no way that anyone can argue that the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment is to require the recognition of gay marriage. At the time of passage, anti-sodomy laws were quite common.
Yet today we have people and judges who are willing to rewrite the history behind the Fourteenth Amendment to push their agenda. It is every bit as ridiculous as that Saturday Night Live skit and every bit as much a rewrite of history. Here is an idea: If you want the Constitution to require gay marriage, why not propose a new constitutional amendment? That is what happened after the Civil War. A bunch of people and judges did not just sit down and say that the Constitution meant to give blacks equal rights. They did not say that it was a living document that just magically changed with the Civil War. They did not say that now that a majority of people supported equal rights for blacks, judges just have to rule that way. They actually went through the constitutional amendment process. Even though it was ignored for nearly one hundred years, at least it was actually in the Constitution to be used in the civil rights fight.
Of course there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits gay marriage, either. If it is so popular, then why use the judicial system? Why not pass laws in the state legislatures or pass state constitutional amendments? Why muck up the judicial system? Why muck up the Constitution? Why muck up history?