The U.S. Supreme Court recently accepted a case arguing that marriage exists for its procreative potential, not just as recognition of a loving relationship between two people, according to the Associated Press.
In the new court filing between a lesbian couple, Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin, and Tulsa County Court Clerk Sally Howe Smith, Smith’s lawyers said that marriage is about furthering “potentially procreative sexual relationships into stable unions” rather than recognizing the love and commitment of two people.
Today, LGBT has become a symbol of progress and its antagonism appears heretic. Now we are living in a generation in which conservatism became something hateful and regressive. So what’s the point of the Supreme Court’s consideration on the case?
Are they willing to revert the mainstream that has swept our generation to the core? Or are they coming out with some revolutionary idea about marriage or definition thereof?
Yes, our history has been marred by erroneous prejudices and oppression against the minority. But the political dynamics always is binary. The pendulum swing only can be countered by its opposite, not by correct one, that is , the remedial action is also erroneous one.
The struggle between the left and the right is a perpetual one, not temporal. The battle is not about progressiveness of human mind or cultural cultivation.
It is a chasm between individual moral and collective counterpart. The historic wrongdoing by the majority such as interracial marriage ban, a case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967, which was found unconstitutional, has always been on the menu when LGBT is on defense.
The comprehensive denial of conservatism is another strategy adopted by radicalism; it is effective yet to be detrimental because the kind of logic that supposedly backs up the radical ideologies backfires.
Bishop and Baldwin said in a statement that “marriage is many things to many people, and LGBT people want nothing more than stable families, many of which include children, and relationships that benefit society.” Their lawyers for the couple argued that the marriage ban demeans same-sex couples and their children because it sends the message that their relationships are secondary to those built in traditional families.
The same argument attacks the foundation of LGBT ideologies. The pro-LGBT itself insults the long history of unquestioned moral in marriage. How LGBT will benefit a society is not going to be ratified so soon. So is it our societal moral that is always hitting on the bottom because of LGBT depletion within social psyche?
If banning the same sex marriage is to demean LGBT group, LGBT denies the common sense imbued in the cultural normalcy. I do not find merit in same sex marriage. Will it stop at institutionalizing homosexual marriage? Individual right as a human being is one thing, tyranny by minority debasing moral value is another. Perversion cannot be glossed over in the name of radicalism.
Marriage is not something we need to define in the Supreme Court.