What the Supreme Court Really Did

H. L. Mencken once said, “When you hear somebody say, ‘This is not about money’ – it’s about money.” And when you hear somebody say, “This is not about sex” – it’s about sex.

These lines were quoted by Arkansas Senator Dale Bumpers during the congressional debate over President Bill Clinton’s impeachment. The charge leveled against Clinton was that he lied under oath about his sexual relationship with White House intern, Monica Lewinski. But anyone with half a brain knew that this was all about sex and not about his denial of it under oath. No one would have cared about it otherwise.

Of course the President’s detractors most of whom were Republicans denied that. They insisted it was about Clinton perjuring himself  under oath. But we all know it wasn’t really about that. Lying was just the technicality that enabled them to impeach a President they hated. And they got their wish. Clinton was impeached. (Although he was not removed from office).

I believe the same thing is true about gay activists. Their victory in the Supreme Court was a victory for gay sex. Including the biblically prohibited form of it – male to male anal sexual intercourse.  This is not however what was being promoted publicly nor did the Supreme Court frame their decision that way. Gay activists were promoting fundamental human rights. That two people of the same sex should be able to get married under the law. Same as heterosexual couples. A right that was denied to them in many areas of the country until now. The Supreme court in a 5-4 decision characterized gay marriage as a civil right protected by the constitution.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. His rationale being that even though historically marriage between 2 people had always been between a man and a woman, times have changed. Since society now approves of gay marriage, it now becomes a protected right under the constituion.

The minority dissent written by Justice Antonin Scalia was scathing. He called the majority opinion “a threat to democracy”.  Chief Justice John Roberts said the decision had nothing to do with the constitution. (I interpret that to mean that the founding fathers who wrote the constitution certainly never had in mind to grant marriage rights to gay couples. Had they been specifically asked they would have said so. Had they anticipated any such movement in this country, they would have specifically written it into the constitution.)

This decision was met with cheers all over the country. Media pundits and personalities all hailed the decision. They saw the denial of the right of gay couples to get married as a terrible injustice. Television images were awash with reactions from gay couples some of whom were in tears about finally being given the dignity and acceptance they have so long been craving. They were given the right to live together under the sanctity of marriage. The ultimate sanction of their lifestyles.

The only dissent featured in media coverage was by politically conservative politicians and media personalities, and clerics of various religions. With respect to Orthodox Jewry, major organizations registered their protest. Including Agudah, the RCA, and the OU.

But this dissent is overwhelmingly overridden by massive public support for it. The images are clear. Everyone is happy for their gay brethren.  What was once (recently) a public rejection of gay marriage (as demonstrated  in California’s Proposition 8 in 2008 where the majority voted against gay marriage) has turned into public support for it in 2015.

How can people change their minds so quickly? At the risk of answering a question with another question, I think the answer is obvious. How can someone not be affected when they see two people that have experienced a lifetime of discrimination physically moved to tears being declared normal with full rights. What better indicator of normalcy is there than the Supreme Court granting them the right to get married? …making it the law of the land?

I have to admit that watching the reactions of gay people who are otherwise fine and decent human beings; people whose values are otherwise very similar to my own: was very touching. They see a future where gay married couples will not be given another thought. That their lifestyle choices will be just as legitimate as anyone else’s.

I wonder though if public opinion was influenced by what they saw on the surface and ignored what was underneath it. The truth is that what gay activists were asking for on the surface was not anything I am opposed to.  They wanted the right to live together, and have the loving companionship of another human being that happened to be of the same sex. They wanted the same rights granted to married heterosexual couples. Inheritance rights; end of life issues, were denied to people that were not married. They wanted to end discriminatory hiring practices, in housing, in social situations (like being served in restaurants) and in adoptions. The images and messages were all about these things. Things that no one should be denied because of their sexual orientation. They just want to be treated like everyone else.

Who could be against that?! Who wouldn’t shed a tear of joy when seeing good people being granted rights previously denied to them?

The problem of course is that it doesn’t end there. What gay activists really seek is legitimizing gay sex. The most common expression of which (for men) is male to male anal sex. This is never mentioned at all. It is as though it doesn’t exist. But this is precisely what is being sanctioned. The government has now added its imprimatur to the violation of God’s laws.

True, this is a secular country whose mission is to protect human rights without regard to any religion. On a humanistic level, there is no moral difference between heterosexual sex and gay sex. But is this the kind of country Americans really want to live in? Do Americans want a country that abandons biblical laws… laws that have been honored for centuries? Just because of a new spirit in this country? A new spirit based on a great public relations campaign by gay activists with humanistic values?

I happen to believe that when biblical values are ignored civilizations fall apart. And increasingly in this country that is what’s happening. At least in the area of sexual mores. Government sanction of male to male anal sex is a huge step in that direction.

Just to be absolutely clear, I have no issue with two men living together under one roof.They can love each other and seek companionship. They should be treated with dignity. No rights should be denied to them. But I do have an issue with legitimizing a lifestyle that in the vast majority of cases includes male to male anal sex – a biblically forbidden act. Granting them the constitutional right to get married does that.

It is now the law of the land. And we have to deal with it. But we should all recognize what really happened here. Marriage is not a rights issue. It is a legitimization issue. The Supreme Court  has done away with centuries old American traditions based on the bible. Traditions valued by their parents and grandparents going all the way back to founding fathers. I think it’s important to recognize that this is what just happened. And it is equally important to make sure to teach our children that our eternal biblical values override the ever changing and fleeting values of the culture.

About the Author
My worldview is based on the philosophy of my teacher, Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik , and the writings of Rabbis Joseph B. Soloveitcihk , Norman Lamm, and Dr. Eliezer Berkovits from whom I developed an appreciation for philosophy. I attended Telshe Yeshiva and the Hebrew Theological College where I was ordained. I also attended Roosevelt University where I received my degree in Psychology.
Comments