The 'equality' of 9 is the extinction of the people's will

Unfortunately, like Roe v. Wade, the (re)defining of marriage is being handed over to 9 individuals instead of being left up to the Will of the People among the many states...

CNSNews: This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California's Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State's pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.

Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law.

Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core.

The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme Court will put its official stamp of approval on that cartoonish contradiction-in-terms labeled "same-sex marriage." Ultimately, these nine justices will decide either to recklessly deconstruct, radically redefine and render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage - or leave it alone.

Here's the bottom line: Homosexual activists don't want the white picket fence. They want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called "marriage equality," but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.

So, if the high court removes one natural marriage parameter for one special-interest group, then "equal protection under the law" requires that it remove all natural marriage parameters for all special-interest groups.

It's all very simple. If anything is marriage, then everything is marriage. And if everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage at all. "'Marriage equality' becomes 'marriage elasticity,' with the ultimate goal of 'marriage extinction.'"

I sincerely hope that the honorable and learned men and women who sit on the highest bench in the land recognize that all of these San Francisco-style social-engineering games are a deceptive means to a destructive end. And it's not the emotionalist end they've dolled-up and dished out. The left's fierce push for "gay marriage" has nothing to do with "marriage equality" and everything to do with "marriage extinction."

Why are nine unelected individuals permitted to constantly chip away at our Republic? The implications of this decision, along with others, could not only set the stage for a moral backslide, but will undoubtedly contribute to the further decline of our society. Look back no further than Rome to understand that though this battle is nothing new under the sun, it is nonetheless a redefining one for civilization.

ADDENDUM: On the argument of 'marriage equality', particularly as it pertains to Christianity, Dana Loesch wrote an excellent RedState piece for wobbly conservatives...

I’ve never understood how anyone who spent the past four-plus years lamenting the size of government could then argue for its increase by inviting it into the discussion of marriage. We complain about government in health care, we complain about government in education, we complain about government regulating soft drink size, but suddenly some of us have no problem with more government in people’s relationships with one another. Marriage is a covenant between a man, woman, and God before God on His terms. It is a religious civil liberty, not a right granted by government. It should never have been regulated by government in the first place, and government shouldn’t have an expanded reach in further regulating it now. There is no allowance constitutionally that invites our government to define the religious covenant of marriage.

I’ve no issue with same sex couples entering into contractual agreements with each other or sharing benefits... Isn’t that the goal of this conflict? If so, to me, that’s an issue separate from marriage.

In suing over marriage one is demanding that others modify their beliefs to accommodate another. Do not people of faith retain their First Amendment liberty of freedom of religion?

Spot on! There's not only an attempt to redefine the institution of marriage, but there's the ongoing battle to redefine what rights actually are. And secular advocates are petitioning a few individuals on the High Court to do so? What a wrong turn. The religious are asked to give up a defined sacrament in exchange for an invented right? How is that more advantageous for society than maintaining the sanctity of marriage? It's not...and there's nothing conservative about it.

As theRightScoop points out, "What many don’t understand about the Christian opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality is that God created marriage and he created sexuality, therefore both are sacred... To change the definition of marriage between a man and a woman is to desacralize this institution and turn it into something God did not intend."

If government wishes to arbitrate definitions for legal purposes, then let them refer to us all as civil unions equally, and allow the sacrament of marriage to remain the religious institution it has always been in America. Alas, I know that will never be enough for the Left.