Historically Disfavored
The last few years, I’ve found it nearly humorous the way judges and lawmakers forget simple logic.
Apparently, Iowa now permits same-sex marriage. Whatever. Who cares. The only thing accomplished with this nonsense is that more divorces will occur.
This post, however, is only about one sentence in the Whirled article, where the Iowa supreme court states:
Iowa lawmakers have “excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.”
Hmm… I read that three times before I decided they meant:
Representatives of Iowa’s citizens historically never had to deal with this issue, because it was always understood by the populace at large that marriage was between men and women. Historically nobody would have dreamed that marriage would have had to be defined.
It’s kind of like the courts defining that cereal is historically eaten in a bowl with a spoon and milk. Somebody comes along and says, “No, I use a plate and a fork with my cereal and you shouldn’t historically disfavor me because of that.”
Of course, marriage already is defined. I guess nobody chose to look. I’ll just say that I don’t believe man’s law trumps natural laws already in place. But hey, men and women have “historically disfavored” themselves in holding the sanctity of marriage intact, and I see no reason to believe those of the same gender will – after sufficient history – prove themselves otherwise. In the end, we are all (or we all will be) guilty of demeaning and giving little value to marriage.
After awhile, I suspect this will be the norm. After it does, our increasingly degenerate culture will likely soon debate other issues that already have a natural definition. After the culture becomes numb or immune to one controversial issue, it will more quickly and easily accept other, more bizarre issues.
