New York Decision Keeps Traditional Definition of Marriage in Play

 by Alan Sears  

| View comments |  Print This Post

The law and the Constitution simply aren't on the side of homosexual activists; neither are the votes. But many judges are, and so are a few scattered legislators, which is why advocates of the homosexual agenda are screeching like scalded cats, in the wake of Thursday's decision.

It may have been the greatest catch seen in New York since Willie Mays made off with that long ball in the 1954 World Series.

With Hernandez v. Robles, the political special interests who've been stepping up to the plate again and again for the homosexual agenda took a good, long swing for the fences - hoping the New York State Court of Appeals would let them clobber the traditional meaning of marriage clean over the left field wall.

Happily, the high court snagged this snowcone just in time.

In doing so, they put their considerable authority behind the assertion - increasingly off-base in this age of so many activist jurists - that the best arbiters of the right-and-wrong of these issues are not judges, but the people themselves.

"We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives," said Judge Robert Smith. Once upon a time, that idea was plain as the prose in the Gettysburg Address: "government of the people, for the people, by the people." Nowadays, it's considerably less of a given, in the minds of those pressing for a judicially-decreed same-sex "marriage" agenda.

And in the minds of those feeling that pressure, too.

A few weeks ago, a majority of U.S. senators begged off making a decision on a federal marriage amendment, explaining that such matters should be left to the states. Since 45 states have now made it official - through statutes or constitutional amendments - that they support marriage as the union of one man and one woman, one might have thought the feelings of the people were sufficiently self-evident, even for United States senators.

But these senators weren't just dodging the question, catering to those who want marriage re-upholstered. In fact, they were pulling a bait-and-switch - posing as states rights advocates while effectively pitching the responsibility for deciding the issue over the heads of voters, and into the laps of some judges all too eager to trump the people's votes with their own agenda.

It's a win-win for the fence-sitting senators. If the courts support the voters' measures, "the people have spoken." If the judges reverse the initiatives of the ballot box, well, "it was out of our hands."

Now, remarkably, New York's court has gone its senators one better: they've pitched the question back. In effect, Smith and his fellow judges have said, "The law is clear. ‘Marriage' is between a man and a woman. If you want to change that, you're going to have to go on record. You're going to have to deliberately defy the overwhelmingly clear wishes of your constituents."

Which is why advocates of the homosexual agenda are screeching like scalded cats, in the wake of Thursday's decision. For all their talk of polls that show Americans "evenly split" on the marriage issue, they know there can be a big difference between what a citizen tells a pollster and what he votes at the polls. Even Massachusetts radicals couldn't pass a pro-same-sex-union initiative on the ballot; a judge had to ram it down the people's throats.

And, indeed, that kind of ramming is the specialty of those pushing the homosexual political and legal agendas. The law and the Constitution simply aren't on their side; neither are the votes. But many judges are, and so are a few sceattered legislators. Not to mention a host of academics, a largely-friendly media, and the polished propagandists of Hollywood.

Between them, they're making some progress - the judges and legislators by rewriting laws, the academics by reinterpreting history, and the media and its darlings by chipping away at the sensibilities of the next generation. It's a powerful team effort, but it hinges on keeping the U.S. Constitution and its state counterparts out of the hands of the voters.

Somehow, despite assaults on so many fronts, the eternal verities remain widely entrenched. In the battle between biblical morality and Brokeback Mountain, the Bible is still winning - even in blue states. Given a choice between the sanctity of the family and the agenda-driven antics of Will and Grace, most Americans still cherish their children and their futures.

The ruling by New York's high court, coupled with the near-simultaneous judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia in support of its voters' state marriage amendment, is a clarion call to those throughout the country who are struggling for the sanctity of marriage. More than that, it's an emphatic nod to the sagacity of history, the authority of Judeo-Christian tradition, and the inescapable biological and psychological fact that men and women are not interchangeable.

In other words, in the great battle for the future of America's families — the game ain't over, yet.

Hey, New York: great catch.

Politics: General, Constitutional Issues, Civil Liberty & Rights, Family Issues, Homosexuality, The Courts, Legal, Criminal Justice, Death Penalty

Read more articles by Alan Sears