Note that the very combination of “same sex” with “marriage” in the official court case indicates that the traditionalists have lost the debate in the public sphere. More on that if you scroll down. I’ve added the “” in the text here taken from C-SPAN.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in two same-sex ‘marriage’ cases that were consolidated with two others under the title of Obergefell v. Hodges. The cases in Part 1, DeBoer v. Snyder and Bourke v. Bashear, concern whether the 14th Amendment requires a state to license a ‘marriage’ between two people of the same sex.
DeBoer v. Snyder and Bourke v. Bashear.
This program contained the audio recording released by the court immediately after the arguments were presented. Still images of participants were shown on the screen as they spoke. Justice Thomas did not speak.
LISTEN NOW: Supreme Court Oral Argument on Same Sex ‘Marriage’:
Part 1 – http://cs.pn/1FudSZd
Part 2 – http://cs.pn/1bzvy9P
What do you think about this:
The law is an ordinance of reason. Western Civilization gave up rule by arbitrary emotion and capricious desire with the advent of the Magna Carta. With this document man began his declaration that sober objective reason is of higher value than subjective emotion. Western law therefore, cannot recognize any contract grounded in emotion alone, and indeed, it does not. The law maintains that a man must be rationally sound in order to enter into and contract or obtain a license or else the contract or license is deemed null and void. Since so-called “‘gay’ marriage” is grounded in “mutual affection” -a shared feeling, rather than the dictates of reason, it is not visible to reason. To say that a term means whatever anyone wants it to mean renders it incommunicable.
A Challenge for Detractors:
Those who object to the rational and thus natural definition of marriage tend to make the case that marriage is about, “shared values, mutual respect and romantic attraction.”
[Would those who hold this view] allow a ten year old and a ninety year old who, “share the same values, mutual respect and romantic attraction” to marry?
Would they allow a thousand men who, “share values and romantic attraction to marry?” etc.
There does not seem to be anything in the detractors argument he or she could use to intelligibly deny these types of relationships from being conceptualized as “marriage.” I would also ask these objectors if their definition would open the institution so wide that it would become virtually unintelligible as a concept. Just think, if a term is so broad that it can mean anything at all, does it not actually mean nothing at all? Does the objector believe that Eros, or romantic attraction must be governed by the good in order for it to be a good type of romantic attraction. Again, all types of evil acts have been committed in history in the name of Eros (romance): suicide pairs, pacts, murders, a man leaves his children and wife for another woman, same-gender coupling, all in the name of Eros.
Reason must govern the passions by way of the will, to form a rational appetite. We were told it long ago by Plato. As the king governs by his executive, so Reason in man must rule the mere appetites by means of the ‘spirited element.’ The head rules the belly through the chest–the seat, as Alanus tells us, of Magnanimity, of emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments. The Chest-Magnanimity-Sentiment–these are the indespensible liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal.
Excerpt from Ryan Sorba, “The Born Gay Hoax.”