The oral arguments proved why the gay marriage issue is before the Supreme Court: radical individualism and radical egalitarianism are the driving ideologies.
In the second set of oral arguments, the word “dad” was never mentioned, and the word “father” was cited only once. “Mom” was mentioned once, and “mother” was never cited. There was zero discussion of religion. The words “right” and “rights,” however, were cited 24 times, but the words “responsibility” and “responsibilities” were never mentioned. Neither were the words “kin” and “kinship.”
In the first set of oral arguments, there was also no mention of “kin” or “kinship.” The words “right” and “rights” were cited 91 times, but the words “responsibility” and “responsibilities” were mentioned only thrice.
It is not easy to discuss marriage and the family without mentioning kinship, or the responsibilities of mothers and fathers, but they managed to do so. With the exception of John Bursch, who argued the case for traditional marriage, words such as “biological father and mother” were avoided. “Rights,” of course, rolled off everyone’s lips.
In the first oral arguments, Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia raised the issue of religious liberty in relation to gay marriage. The answers were not reassuring. They were told that the states could provide protections, but Scalia kept reminding them that state laws won’t matter if gay marriage is recognized as a constitutional right. He was questioning whether ministers would be required to perform gay marriages.
Alito asked if a religious school would be forced to provide married housing to a gay couple. After Solicitor General Donald Verrilli dodged it, Alito asked if the school could lose its tax-exempt status. Verrilli said he didn’t know but conceded, “it is going to be an issue.”
The radical agenda will not stop with gay marriage: The goal is to crush the churches. This is totalitarianism with a soft face.