It’s crunch time for gender-segregated marriage. There are two down in the bottom of the fourth quarter, and the chukker’s got a busted knee. Given the pouring rain, the tenth frame looks just as bad. The manager makes a call to the penalty box: free kick. Out trots the prom queen . . swinging a dildo? As if united in desperation, the fans cry out: Where is the National Review?
On Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear arguments in two cases that are at the center of the same-sex-marriage controversy.
At issue in both cases is whether courts should even be hearing them, because there are knotty questions of standing (and also of what should happen to lower-court rulings if the Court rules that parties did not have standing). If the Court does reach the merits in these cases, it should find its way toward a defense of the right of republican self-government.
States’ rights? Good! Let’s go with that. It should be up to the states to decide. Then we can pretend that the Defense of Marriage Act had nothing to do with us trying to strangle same-sex marriage from Washington D.C. Unchain the states! That’s what conservatism is all about. More:
Of the various arguments advanced for a constitutional “right” of same-sex marriage, none withstands even momentary scrutiny by accepted standards.
Please wait until the arguments have come to a complete thud before exiting the post. And thank you for flying with National Review. Hum buh-bye. Buh-bye. Buh-bye. Buh-bye.
Are gays and lesbians a powerless and oppressed minority?
Wait! How can gays possibly have this constitutional “right” . .
One can hardly say that after the November elections, in which the cause of same-sex marriage was victorious in four states, in a year when it was also embraced by the president of the United States and enshrined in the platform of the larger of our major parties.
. . when they’re not black Southerners in the sixties? If I remember correctly, it was only after the Supreme Court ruled “The powerless and battered Citizens of Montgomery ipso facto have the constitutional right to whine” that *poof* black people first appeared before the rest of us. That’s when they joined the Democratic Party, and everybody was like “WHO THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE?”
Is it rationally indefensible to reserve the institution of marriage to the only kind of union — one man and one woman — that is capable of procreation, and to the kind of union that is proven to be the best general setting for the rearing of children?
That last argument is particularly dumb. But to the previous one — ‘procreation’ — gay marriage itself has blown that out of the water. The gay marrieds don’t and technically can’t procreate but there they are. As married as anyone else.
My sister and her boyfriend got hitched and they adopted two children. They are not fake-way ‘gay’ married. They’re married. Even the National Review agrees. Must we list all the reasons people do this?
BTW — someday Science will learn how to manipulate a sperm sample so as to swap the donor’s chromosomes with a woman’s. Then Hunky Lesbo with an expensive strap-on will impregnate Lacy Lesbo and God Help Us All. They’ll have a baby girl. I’m not guessing about this, I’m a actual molecular biologist. Ha!