Tuesday, July 16, 2013

A Long, Rambling Rant on the Idiocracy We Live Under

My previous post on the commentary by the theologian of the papal household prodded me into thinking about the upcoming features of the expanding crisis arising from the sexual revolution. I want to comment upon that a bit.

If the early indications are a sign of the future, we are going to see widespread persecution of moral people in the cultures that have surrendered to hedonism.  It is already happening.  The enforcement of the so-called right of same-sex marriage is a manifestation of this. People are already facing criminal penalties for not going along with the new morality. The simple question we need to ask of our society is why there is even a possibility of criminal punishment for one’s unwillingness to participate in another’s lifestyle “choice.” 

It does not take a historian to know that the nation’s laws and political system were not created in a moral vacuum.  At the founding of our nation, no one, and I do mean no one, would have considered punishing another person for not cooperating with a person’s homosexual lifestyle.  Certainly, as the U. S. Supreme once held, there is no right to same sex relations or unions anywhere in the Constitution or anywhere in the founding documents and related treatises of our nation. If ordinary citizens of the states can now be fined or imprisoned for failing to participate in some act that they have every right, historically respected, to consider immoral--fines and jail are coming for those who want make cakes or whatever one does for weddings--, what meaning has freedom had in this nation all these years? Is freedom really that obscure, whimsical, and transitory? The latest concept of right permits no tolerance of freedom to maintain the self-evident realities the founders held to at the cost of life.  The founders were treasonous criminals in King George’s England and they would be in the United States today.

The so-called progress in sexual rights is leading the nation down a very dark path which is sure to end badly.  I think the next stop on the road to hell will be widening significantly the legality of sexual activity between an adult and a minor. The model for this legalization is already in place.  

How much time will pass before the culture adapts itself to accept child sexual abuse as legal?  Many will tell you that this will not happen. However, the arguments are being cooked-up even as you read this. If there is no objective basis for right and wrong--Progressives maintain that the difference between good and evil is not identified by the nature of things--, how long will it take before a morally-numbed and utterly cowardly majority is persuaded that they cannot impose their moral stance against the "love between two persons," even when one is a child, on anyone else. Can’t you just hear the contrived reasoning? “Well, this child will now be in a loving home with a “spouse” to love, protect, and honor them. Think of how many children grow up in two parent homes with heterosexual parents who abuse them emotionally and physically…. At least, now, those kids will have the possibility of living with someone who loves them, living peacefully, without fear.” How many times have we heard arguments like this? Of course, it will all be dressed up in fake scientific “analysis.”

The unnaturalness of sodomy was indicated by the Supreme Court in past times and once was a declared truth in law. It was held criminal in most states, even between those with the legal capacity to consent to it. Not any more. As things stand now, however, many are prosecuted for crimes of sodomy only when it involves minors who have not reached the age of consent. The crime has been widespread for years but was too often overlooked.  Having begun to correct the social blindness to these crimes against children and adolescents, is the nation now closer to abolishing these crimes due to the recent activity of the U. S. Supreme Court? I think it is. The high court has virtually thrown open the doors to the acceptance of the sexual abuse of minors.  These crimes that were once overlooked and sometimes unrecognized, more recently subjected to greater scrutiny, will soon be sanctioned if the Supreme Court’s logic in the recent Windsor case is followed.

How long with it take for us to move toward the legitimization of a new culture of institutionalized child abuse? Mmmm...shall I venture a guess? Let's see. Well, it took the U. S. Supreme Court 18 years, from 1986-2003, to go from upholding the constitutionality of sodomy laws (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986—I need to do a post on Bowers--), to striking them down (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). It took Justice Kennedy just 10 years to go from suggesting that homosexual love did not mean one could get married to another of the same gender (Lawrence), to saying that those who passed laws against it were hateful and mean-spirited (US v. Windsor, 2013). We haven't yet seen a high-profile case challenging statutory rape like we had with Bowers and Lawrence on sodomy. We will soon enough and when we do, we can begin the judicial countdown. 

Some will argue that children cannot consent so we need not worry about going down this road.  They must be overlooking the reality that legislators and judges, political creatures all, create legal consent out of nothing more than political debate now. The same system of laws that defines marriage, only to be redefined, also defines consent and marks off the age of consent. There is no protection from those who would define a child’s ability to consent to a relationship. It is a political matter now.  The ability to consent is based upon social policy, certainly not on the nature of a child or anything natural and innate because the mindset behind these changes does not acknowledge anything natural and innate about human life. It was clearly held twenty years ago that two persons of the same sex wishing to marry could not consent to marriage, either.  With the stroke of a pen, the ability to consent to the humanly unnatural is produced.

There is more, however, and this is where things get really complicated. The possibility for legalized unnatural union between an adult and a minor is already available in states that have approved same-sex marriage. Marriages between an adult and a minor are possible in most, if not all states. Ironically, it is often stated that one of the principal reasons that courts approve marriage for minors is pregnancy. The Windsor case interjects a whole new area of chaos into all of this, since there is no possibility of pregnancy in a same-sex liaison.   

In most states one must be 18 to marry without parental consent. Often persons between the ages of 18 and, say, 15 or 16, can marry with parental consent. In many states, at the same time, a person below 16 may be married with a court's approval. So, maybe the complications start there. An adult, let us say, wants to have a marital relationship with a minor partner. A parent or court could approve of a marriage. So, as I mentioned earlier, that would seem to be legal possibility in some states already, even though these age-of-consent laws were drafted contemplating a natural marriage.

It is likely that adult-minor unions are already happening with same-sex partners in states where such unions are now recognized as marriages. How long will it take for this to become widespread? Let's see, marriage between a man over 18 and a boy of say, 15, could happen in Hawaii, now, for example with no problem if the boy's parents approve. (Why anyone would approve is beyond me but such things seem to occur.) In California law, there is no minimal age for marriage with a judge's approval.

In a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage between an adult and a minor, the relationship that includes sexual activity between such persons could lead to criminal charges against the adult.  It is generally held, for the time being anyway, that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriage licensed in other states, even though the federal government does, when they violate the destination state’s public policy. However--and here comes the tricky part--, could the putative marriage in one state constitute a defense against a criminal charge of sexual abuse of a minor, statutory rape or some charge of that nature in another state? Will someone invoke a defense against child molestation or sexual abuse charges on the basis of out-of-state marriage laws between persons of the same-sex? Would they assert the lack of equal protection of the laws if they brought up on charges of sex crimes with their young lover who could have married the adult in one state but not another? You bet they will.

Will there be future political action to make sure this type of defense is secure in law? Again, you bet there will. How long do you think same-sex marriage proponents will tolerate any potential for charges of sexual molestation in a state that enforces a clear public policy against adult-minor same-sex marriages by prosecuting the adults under its laws? Not long, I imagine. Why should they? Remember, the penalties for the sexual abuse of minors is severe in most places.

Statutory sexual offenses are based upon the legal incapacity of the person, in this case a minor, to consent to sexual activity.  Usually, the age of consent for sexual activity is lower than the age of consent for marriage. Sometimes, however, it is the other way around, depending on the circumstances. Moreover, there are areas of overlap and in some cases the minor can be married according to civil statutes before they reach the age of consent for sex in criminal statues.  Now that unions between persons of the same sex, adult and minor, can be “legal” marriages, I fail to see how the “illegal” relationships can remain criminalized now that same sex marriages are being treated with the same deference as true marriages. If a person is criminally charged for a sexual relationship with a minor whom he or she could have married, will our court system find that it is acceptable for the state to discriminate between the married and unmarried when it comes to sexual activity?  Not for long, I am afraid.  Were these criminal laws challenged by heterosexuals in the past? Surely. Will they be challenged by homosexuals charged with statutory crimes? It’s guaranteed and the same-sex marriage lobby is already geared up for the task. Remember, there is no potential pregnancy to contend with here. The fear of the incontrovertible proof for the abhorrent crimes of sex with minors that comes with pregnancy is not an issue here.

The thing that I find most disturbing about the Windsor opinion is the utter blindness of the court to the consequences of its decision.  This, however, is typical of the institution we call the U. S. Supreme Court. The court has been mucking around in this area for a long time and what good has come of it?  Every time the justices do something like this, from Griswold v. Connecticut, to Eisenstadt v. Baird, to Roe and Doe, it creates a path of destruction. Lasting marriages, healthy families, happy children, all of this is practically disappearing from our culture all because the court believes it is its job to satisfy the wants of a relatively few social malcontents. They always end up opening a door that spawns more new "socially-engineered" groups  in an ever-widening downward cultural spiral.  In the place of supporting time-honored virtues, the U. S. Supreme Court believes it is the job of legislators and courts to strike out boldly on the path of the latest pseudo-scientific experiment in social evolution, to borrow a thought from the 1931 editors of the Washington Post.  How is that wise, intelligent, or worthy of any respect? Apparently, the weakness of the federal court system is that the court can pontificate on social policy and suffers no consequence for the havoc it wreaks. However did we come to allow such idiocy to ruin our lives? Shame on us for accepting this madness.

No comments: