Same sex marriage and the queers in black robes - Part II

Same sex marriage and the queers in black robes - Part II

If you read my last piece on gay marriage , you may wonder why Part II here refers to it as same sex marriage.  I'm wondering the same thing myself.

I don't know if one is more acceptable or less politically incorrect than the other.  I'm not even sure I know the difference between Oriental and Asian.

This has been a tough sequel to write.  They're lucky they didn't pull me in to write Sharknado 2 or there wouldn't be any Sharknado 3 .

Response to the first piece was pretty much as you would expect, which included a strong dose of hypocrisy laced with flavors of irony.

To sum it up, it seems that the folks who think government should do more to help the middle class and underprivileged also think that said government has no business in the bedroom or in the womb.

On the flip side, those who seem to favor less government interference in their personal lives think government should be more involved in the personal lives of everyone else.

Hurts your head, doesn't it?  But, where did it all begin?

marriage license
James Michael McConnell married the love of his life, Pat Lyn McConnell in 1971 in Minneapolis, Minnesota and they are today, a happily-married couple in their early 70's.

What's not typical are the facts that Pat Lyn's real name is Jack Baker and that he was legally adopted by his husband, Michael McConnell.  Hey, it was 1971 and gay couples were just starting to think about ways they could enjoy the same benefits of marriage as do heterosexual couples.

It wasn't easy for the McConnells to get hitched and their walk down the aisle included a trip to the Supreme Court in 1970.  They lost that case, but persevered until they figured out a way to make it happen.

If you think Caitlin Jenner is courageous, think of the plight of Messrs Backer and McConnell back in 1970.  Homosexuality was still classified as a disorder, sodomy was illegal in nearly every state, and most gay men and lesbians lived in fearful secrecy.

Their request for a marriage license was denied by the Hennepin County (Minnesota) clerk and, when they appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, they were rewarded with the following decree:  “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the Book of Genesis.”

The case  made it's way to the big court (SCOTUS), but on Oct. 10, 1972, the court issued a one-line statement dismissing the appeal “for want of a substantial federal question.”

After decades of back and forth over the issue and who, exactly has jurisdiction, the ball has once again found its way into SCOTUS's court, some 44 years after the marriage of Jack Baker and Michael McConnell.

And that brings us to the queers in black robes and the really bizarre things they say.

At the end of 2-1/2 hours of sometimes emotional arguments back in April, Justice Anthony Kennedy may be the spoiler for one side or the other.

From his questions and his comments, Kennedy seemed empathetic to the plight of same-sex couples, but also showed signs of being overwhelmed by the onus of history.

“I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia,” he said. “This definition has been with us for millennia. And it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.’ ” He added that “the social science on this” — the value and perils of same-sex marriage — is “too new.”

For my people, the history of slavery goes back almost 6 millennia, but I think we can reasonably say that we do know better.

Justices Anton Scalia and Sam Alito both agreed that the idea of same sex marriage may be too radical.  Jack Baker and Michael McConnell, celebrating more than 40 years of marriage may take exception with that.

Scalia echoed Kennedy’s language in emphasizing how new same-sex marriage is. He cited the Netherlands as being the first society that permitted same-sex marriage in 2001.

“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” said Chief Justice John Roberts. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

The chief justice added that he was worried about shutting down a fast-moving societal debate.  He told one of the attorneys presenting the case for same sex marriage, “One of the things that’s truly extraordinary about this whole issue is how quickly has been the acceptance of your position across broad elements of society.”

Justice Scalia agreed. “The issue, of course, is not whether there should be same-sex marriage, but who should decide the point.”  The right answer, he said, was the people or their elected representatives, not the courts.

Notable in all of this is the Court's avoidance of biblical references, as proferred by the Minnesota Supreme Court back in 1970.  Mostly, it's notable because it's absence makes it no less prominent.

Virtually every comment I got defending traditional marriage and/or assaulting the idea of same sex marriage cited some version of abomination.

Now, verily I say unto you,  from Matthew to Revelation (the New Testament), there is no such abomination.  It's just intolerant people proselytizing  intolerance in the name of made up doctrine.

I'm aware that every dollar bill proclaims, "In God We Trust," but we really should try to avoid biblical interpretations of constitutionality.  And if the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to crack down on states choosing which parts of the Constitution they'll obey and which they'll disregard, we may find ourselves back in 1861 (beginning of the Civil War).

While both sides regroup and wait for the Court's decision, a new wrinkle has creased the face of hypocrisy.

GOP presidential candidates including Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz have indicated that they would not support a Supreme Court decision that upholds same sex marriage.  Further, they encouraged individual states to ignore any such ruling.

Not that states like Texas, Alabama and South Carolina need any encouragement in that direction.

You may be an opponent of same sex marriage and I defend your right to that (antediluvian) opinion, but give it some thought.

In about 84 weeks a new president will be taking the oath of office (January 20, 1917).  It's a simple oath, one that even Rick Perry could memorize:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

And that will be said with his or her hand on The Holy Bible.

The president's job isn't to solve every problem in every country.  It isn't even to keep us safe.  The president's one and only job is to defend the Constitution.

The Supreme Court was established by the Constitution and implemented under the Judiciary Act of 1789.  Its job is to determine what is and what is not constitutional.

My only question here is what kind of oath should a new president take after campaigning on a platform of ignoring the Constitution?  Clearly, he will have to come up with a new name for his system of laws.  Sharia's already taken.

Subscribe to the Chicago Board of Tirade

* You will never get SPAM
* Your email address will never be sold or given away
* You will only receive emails on days I post.
* You can unsubscribe at any time
* You can contact me anytime at:

* Just type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button.

Leave a comment