By Bob Vander Plaats –
The following statement from Justice Sonia Sotomayor is from the official Supreme Court transcripts. I highlight this statement because the Obama-appointed justice poses a very real question for all Americans to fully grasp when wading into the marital redefinition waters.
Located on page 46 of the transcript, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor questions the potential slippery slope if marriage is re-defined:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you’re being asked — and — and it is one that I’m interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to — that could get married — the incest laws, the mother and the child, assuming they are of age — I can — I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on — on protecting the child until they’re of age to marry, but what’s left?”
Marriage is the fundamental building block for society. It predates any government as it is impossible to have “we the government” before there is “we the people.” One man and one woman marriage is instituted by God. It is revealed by nature. And, it is overwhelmingly supported by science.
This is why the Reverend Billy Graham is stumped when he expresses his disbelief that our culture is debating the definition of marriage. Reverend Graham, and common sense tells us, marriage is clear…it is reserved for one man and one woman. And supporting Reverend Graham’s view on marriage is the freshly inaugurated Pope, Pope Francis, who warns that any attempt to redefine this sacred institution is an attempt to thwart God’s plan.
The design by God, the procreation of nature, the data by science and the prophetic words of Graham and Pope Francis are not enough for those who desire homosexuals to be recognized through marriage. Hollywood, the liberal media and the far left have championed their distorted view of marriage through the warm words of equality, of tolerance and of love.
Stalling these words in their proverbial tracks is none other than the liberal-leaning Justice Sotomayer, when she asked the “what if” scenarios. The logical answers to these scenarios should run a disturbing chill down America’s collective spine.
If we remove the natural parameters regarding marriage, then we cannot stop the redefinition cycle of rights at homosexual marriage. We will be compelled to go further to embrace polygamy, polyandry, siblings marrying siblings, and parents marrying children.
To do otherwise would be an insult to the tolerant and equality message of the far left.
Taking a stand for marriage as God instituted, as nature reveals, and as science substantiates is a wise and prudent course of action for this Supreme Court. Any attempt to “redefine” marriage will ultimately “un-define” marriage. And when marriage is “un-defined,” anything and everything goes, which means marriage will effectively mean nothing.
Marriage is a timeless truth, and embracing its beauty and character is a timeless love for the current and subsequent generations. Thus, I urge the Supreme Court to take its leadership cues from nature, from nature’s God, from scientific data and from spiritual leaders like Graham and Pope Francis.
[fblike style=”standard” showfaces=”false” verb=”like” font=”arial”]