When Chief Justice Roberts
weighed in to destroy the structure of marriage he joined with the pervading
social zeitgeist of unreality of the era that was redefining names to mean
flavors of evolution rather than Platonic realist things-in-themselves.
Marriage had a structure that was written in common law and tradition that
referred to the institution protecting women and children’s rights’ family
rights in the process of creating humans. Creating or birthing humans was
always accomplished exclusively with two people heterosexually sharing the
task. Chief Justice Roberts and court secularists decided it was convenient to
destroy the meaning of the structure of marriage and change it to something
else that would thereby permit homosexuals to redistribute the rights given by
law to marriage unto themselves as well.
Redefining structure as a
method for redistributing the properties of legal rights is an interesting way
to render laws and meanings malleable to corrupt interests seeking to
expropriate established properties of rights. If structure is explicitly
redefined it should be acknowledged publicly rather than in passing fate
accompli. In the case of marriage it would have been a better choice to leave
the integrity of the meaning of the word in its historical and sane context and
create a new establishment for homosexuals to legally entangle themselves
together in instead of corrupting plain and simple truth.
The criterion's conundrum was the rise of nominalism over neo-realism in linguistics. Kripke's version failed to a nominalism so extreme that falsehood became as good as truth. Courts regarded morphing structures as fair dinkum in reconstructing political correctness for the New World Order favoring billionaires and scientist-atheists.
One of the problems with
erasing truth from law and legal structures that are well established and
replacing them with operative fiction is in the new methods of defense of
hostile takeovers that attack defenders as bigots. In the case of abortion
women in support of abortion did not generally accuse men and women that
opposed abortion as bigots as did homosexuals to those defending the real
structure of marriage. There is a great difference between taking sides in a
legitimate political dispute in a democratic society and bigotry or persecution
of individuals personally for having an antipathetic political opinion
publicly expressed. In the modern social media environment many subtle ways
exist to harm conservatives defending traditional values- and here I refer to
moral values rather than interests of the rich and wealth classes seeking to
concentrate wealth that paradoxically is quite predominant amidst homosexuals
and Wall Street equally with moral conservatives.
Truth is a useful item to
adhere to even when it requires philosophical thought instead of simple
unthinking acceptance of a given social inertia. Evolution theory seems to
eliminate the requirement for truth in politics as the end and methods are
deemed for-themselves neither good nor bad except as they are desired by the
powerful. Evolution theory is just a phenomenon in a deeper Universe or
Multiverse that may exist as math ideas in the mind of God. The entire Universe
may be pre-determined structurally inclusive of evolution in a mysterious
eternally existing process sustained by the will of God. Modern cosmology
offers a field of deep ideas that aren’t antipathetic to the concept that Jesus
Christ is the Word of God who created the Universe. The shallow leap to the
conclusion that if evolution exists then Bible cosmology is wrong and that idea
is itself wrong. Legal issue need also seek to keep the truth of structures
intact in respect of laws promulgated by a Democratic, representative
government. Instead of corrupting the meaning of structures it should allow
legislatures to put new vinegar into new wine skins.
Consider the idea of the
structure of what makes a church for tax exempt status purposes. In theory
there isn’t much reason why the Supreme Court couldn’t hear a case and decide
that the Dow Jones establishment is a church where people worship money and
should therefore be given tax exempt status for all the members. If the court
did that it would be recognizable that the meaning of the structure of a church
had changed or been corrupted to benefit a special interest as it was in the
case of homosexuals and marriage.
There was no compelling
reason to corrupt one working structure by redefining and thereby destroying it
to protect a minority or to assure equal rights or protection of the law; all
men and women in the U.S.A. had equal opportunity to participate in marriage.
Now that the structure of marriage has been destroyed, none have the
opportunity. What supplanted marriage and took its name is something else that
is likely to have long-range deleterious effects upon society equal to that of
the corruption by the Supreme Courts choice.
Conflation of a host of
issues pertaining to discrimination against homosexuals led to the wrong
decision to annihilate the structure of marriage, although a secondary reason
was that certain influential, effete intellectuals felt that global
demographics and the limits of population growth deemed the need to end
marriage as a normal practice. Truth and information were better ways to
address the problems of population growth and decreasing ecosystem extent and
health with finite natural resources. All citizens including homosexuals should
have security in work and culture; that wasn’t ever much of an issue. If people
wish to sin that is their right so far as it isn’t a crime in this world. Homosexuals,
Wall Street, social media and the left have tried to ban opposition to
homosexual marriage and have employed subtle and some ham-fisted methods to
proscribe expression of opposition. So much the worse for democracy and
empowerment of Plutocrats and their minions.
A final point for the edification
of certain broadcast media wise-guys on what the meaning is of the Christian
Church being the bride of Christ. It
is nothing about homosexuality that is roundly proscribed in the Bible in New
and Old Testaments. It is simply and expression, a kind of literal metaphor
about the love that the creator of the Universe has for the souls that are the
elect and saved eternally to worship God. Keep in mind that the Christian
belief is that God created the Universe and every soul in it, and that the
Universe is replete with original sin (that to me is exemplified in the
thermodynamic facts of life and energy consumption and pro-creative urges) and
therefore people are unfit for eternal life with God. Just through the atoning
gift of God in the saving grace and crucifixion and substitution of the Lord
Jesus for payment-unto death of sin owed by all can any of humanity be saved,
rather than go to eternal hell.
A human soul is a vaporous
thing in a manner of speaking. It is a phenomenal, effervescent self-aware
person existing for a moment in temporal being. It was created in a Universe
created by God through the Son as the Word of God. God loves those saved souls
and that is the meaning of the church as the bride of Christ; he really does
care about the elect saved through the grace of the Spirit of God enabling
faith in individual souls. The swell broadcast media and others might need a
little humility to comprehend that. Too much prosperity and power may dull spiritual
sensibility as well as good political sense to understand the value f keeping
integrity concerning structure and legal meanings rather than melting down
non-legislatively as if they were wax forms to be recast in the zeitgeist-world
spirit of political correctness.