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.
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.