World Congress of Families spokesman Don Feder claims that the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act will legalize polygamy, incest, pedophilia and bestiality, and will ultimately mean that society is “doomed to extinction.” In fact, Feder writes in a column today, “Members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association celebrated [the ruling] by forming a chorus line in trench coats, waving candy bars.”
Feder calls the push for marriage equality “marriage mutilation” and asserts that gays and lesbians are a “breeding ground for all sexually transmitted diseases,” warning that their “death-style” only produces “disease and chaos.”
Oh give me a home where the loving couples roam and constitutionally-protected sexual choices hold sway.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which essentially said that if a state was stupid enough to establish ersatz marriage, federal taxpayers weren't required to subsidize the travesty.
Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy – Ronald Reagan's most tragic mistake, surpassing even Bush '41 – said the wicked and iniquitous DOMA "places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in second-tier marriages. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects…."
Of course, the Constitution does no such thing. It no more protects "sexual choices" (under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) than it creates a sphere of privacy (under the First Amendment) which permits abortion-on-demand. A society incapable of differentiating between a family and a perversion is doomed to extinction. Concurring with DOMA's 5-4 majority, the nation's Love Doctor, Barack Hussein Obama, exalted: "I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving couples as a separate and lesser class of people….We are a people who declared that we are all created equal…. And the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." (Emphasis added.) All the love we "commit" – including polygamous love, incestuous love, "intergenerational" love (pedophilia), cross-species love, and masochistic love (taxpayers voting for Democrats)?
We the People, in whose name the Constitution was ordained and established, have decreed – frequently and volubly, in the only polls that count – that we reject marriage mutilation.
No matter. Windsor makes clear what will be the inevitable outcome of the current charade. Again, from Scalia's dissent: "It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here – when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congresses' hateful moral judgment against it."
Besides democracy, loving couples also trump public health.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (when last I checked, not an arm of the Family Research Council), "men who have sex with men" or MSMs (AKA, male homosexuals), made up 61% of all new HIV cases in 2010, while constituting between 2% and 4% of the male population.
Conservatively, that means male homosexuals are 50 times more likely to become HIV-positive than male heterosexuals. By contrast, a male smoker is only 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer than his non-smoking counterpart.
Loving couples are a breeding ground for all sexually transmitted diseases. Again, according to CDC, a male homosexual is 46 times more likely to contract primary or secondary syphilis than other men. Apparently, all of the love they commit does nothing to ensure anything remotely approaching fidelity and restraint.
One type of family produces children, social order and the future – the other disease and chaos. Which is to be preferred? SCOTUS says differentiation between them is unconstitutionally demeaning.
But government-mandated homosexual marriage is only part of what awaits us. With the gay lobby, there's always the next big thing. They will demand that you endorse their death-style – publicly and on bended-knee. Ultimately, it's about the mailed fist of the state smashing religious liberty and conscience.
During oral arguments, in questioning a lawyer for gay marriage – who claimed that, of course, there would be limits to deconstructing a millennia-old institution – Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor (part of the DOMA majority) asked: "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what's the restriction with respect to the number of people that could get married, the incest laws – mother and child? What's left?"
The obvious answer is nothing – which is why polygamy advocates welcomed the DOMA decision and members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association celebrated by forming a chorus line in trench coats, waving candy bars.