Dennis Prager: California Decision Will Radically Change Society

Here's the link: California Decision Will Radically Change Society

Here's a quote:

Americans seem mesmerized by the word "change." And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex.

Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.

Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.

And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision -- let alone the four compassionate justices -- acknowledge this. The mantra of the supporters of this sea change in society is that it's no big deal. Hey, it doesn't affect any heterosexuals' marriage, so what's the problem?

This lack of acknowledgment -- or even awareness -- of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones -- and their millions of compassionate supporters -- allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a "right" that had been unfairly denied to gays.

Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.

That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism -- ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side.

Be sure to read the rest at the link.

Also worth reading:

Pope restates gay marriage ban after California vote

Bishop Vigneron To The Faithful Of The Oakland Diocese On The California Supreme Court Decision Allowing Same-Sex Marriage

No wiggle room: Vatican says no exceptions to ban on homosexuals in seminaries

Any thoughts?

Comments

[ASimpleSinner]

This is now all about greed and vanity. Honestly thought, it is not the first nail in the coffin, it is one of the last... but with Islamic polygamy in the US around the corner, it isn't quite yet the last!

But 80 years into the West's divorce of marriage from sex, sex from procreation (thank you Anglicans, Margarte Sanger, feminist movement, et al.) and the rise of the "quickie" divorce available for $1500 from strip mall lawyers... Well sex is just for fun and marriage is just for now... Why should people who think like that say "I can divorce and remarry and have sterile sex all I want" and then look at men who do the same thing with men and try to say "but you can't."

Really, this move benifits the defminists and "Sexual Left" greatly - it is just one more stop on road to an idealized utopia of sterile sex in temporary arrangements and materialistic aquisition.

But right around the corner are the Muslim immigrants who are going to want the right to "practice their faith" which includes multiple marriage and ridiculously easy divorce.

Anyone who thinks that is not used as a tool of propogation anbd offense needs to do some reasearch on the history of Lebanon since the 1950s. The soldiers of the Islamic groups in the 80s were the sons of polygamists from the 50s and 60s that descended upon the small Christian Nation.

Look what you have today.

[Dan]

It won't be just the Muslim immigrants who will demand their 'right' to a polygamous arrangements, but also FLDS members. Just take a look at the current case in Texas.

Frankly, if a state allows same sex 'marriages' then I don't think polygamous/polyandrous marriages are far behind.

[Philip]

It takes two to make a thing go right
It takes two to make it out of sight

[Brian Fisher]

Having had no opinion on gay marriage until my wife had an affair with a Catholic priest I find the comment "Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society" to be, well, arrogant! They are not imposing their will on society; society is imposing its will on gay couples. What do you care if a gay couple gets married? Will it actually affect your life? Will it make the world a worse place?
I find it so completely ironic and just plain outrageous that one of the loudest voices against gay marriage is Archbishop John Myers, who went so far as to proclaim Feb. 17, 2008 as a day of prayer for the Scarement of Marriage stating “My Brothers in Christ, Catholics should not stand silent with marriage in crisis.”
But Myers stood by and did nothing when his own personal secretary, Fr. Michael Andreano, had an adulterous affair with my wife. To this day, nearly two years after I first reported the affair to Archbishop Myers, he has still refused to divulge the results of his investigation of the affair to me and Andreano remains at Myers' side.
It just never ceases to amaze me how the people with the biggest mouths on "morality" are always the people who seems least able to demonstrate it by example. Is it any wonder then Myers had such a cozy relationship with another great defender of "family values" polygamist Congressman Vito Fosella?

[David1]

Brian,
One thing I can asure you is that God does exist and ultimately offers a way to a meaningful way of life. The other thing I can assure you is that great damage can be done by some of those who represent religion. In Jesus' own time, his greatest rants were against the Pharisees who were leaders of religion in that day. Please don't confuse God and his truth with some of his representatives. Please don't refrain from seeking God because two of his representatives profoundly hurt you. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Many years ago my first wife also had an affair so I know the deep pain and sense of betrayel. All I can say is to keep moving forward and keep your eyes ahead. Don't try to steer your life by looking in the rear view mirror.

[Jimbo]

Two gays getting married in California may not necessarily "hurt me", but that isn't the standard by which I judge the morality or the wisdom of some course of action. That is, I'm sorry to say, a rather self-preoccupied way of looking at the world.

Gay marriage will ultimately harm the United States as it has done in Europe: marriage rates will decline markedly, out-of-wedlock birthrates will rise substantially, and society will pay more in taxes because of the increase in dysfunctional lives as a consequence of poor families; of course, no one will care in 20 years if this isn't repealed, since people ultimately get accustomed to the condition they're in and cease expecting or dreaming or demanding anything better.

You really think you can redefine something as intrinsically vital as marriage and no shockwaves will be felt by society? Come on. We start using ethanol more and starvation rates and food prices skyrocket. What will the unintended consequences be for altering something as vital for civilization as marriage? But I guess since it won't affect me we should give it a go.

You know, someone getting murdered in New York doesn't affect me at all, but I'm still opposed to it. Imagine that.

[Brian Fisher]

Touche Jimbo, have to give credit for the murder in New York comment!