"As a result of Friday's ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds [sic] and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.
These unions are now the law of the land. And we will not publish such letters and op-Eds [sic] any
more than we would publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic.
We will, however, for a limited time, accept letters and op-Eds [sic] on the high court's decision
and its legal merits.
The march of progress is often slow, but it is always steady.
On Friday, the United States took another step toward the ideal of equality envisioned by its founders. And we are all more free as a result." (Read the whole thing here)
(Aside: Since Thomas Jefferson believed men should be castrated for committing sodomy, it might be a little naive to think gay marriage was included in the “ideal of equality envisioned by [our] founders.”)*
Mr. Micek apparently believes that views opposing situations where "women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones…” and where "men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another” and so "committed shameful acts with other men” should not be allowed to be voiced at all because the authority of all authorities has spoken. In fact, this has been one of the main reasons for the recent eruption of gay rights giddiness—that they’ve been vindicated and declared righteous by the ultimate authority.
But these feelings of validation are not valid, and even those who bleed rainbow know this. Remember, it was also The Supreme Court that ruled against Dred Scott. And if the Supreme Court ever makes a future ruling against at-will abortions, or one that gives business owners the right to refuse to accommodate sexual behavior they believe to be immoral, certainly Mr. Micek would not decree that all opinions to the contrary are banned because The Supreme Court has spoken.
Justice Roberts and other dissenting justices thought the ruling was ridiculous. Certainly their credentials give them as much authority as the other five. Likewise, some highly credentialed law professors, such as Robert George of Princeton, believe “the lawlessness of [the recent decision] is evident in the fact that [it] lacks any foundation or warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution.” (read more) But then the justices in favor of the ruling are just as highly credentialed as George and Roberts.
In all but the most fundamental of moral questions the situation is the same. When it comes to homosexual vs. traditional marriage, or perceived conflicts between science and religion, or abortion vs. the belief that babies shouldn’t be killed in their mothers’ wombs, a lot of people often like to wield the rube-against-reason argument, which essentially says, “Let’s face it. All the smart people agree with us, and only the ignorant superstitious kooks would believe otherwise.” But this is almost never true. For example, you might think someone who believes that a mother should have the right to kill her healthy newborn child is an empty-headed, heartless monster, but then that person would have the distinguished professor of ethics, Dr. Peter Singer (also at prestigious Princeton University), on his side.
Our world is like an old western town where the lawmen and the outlaws both wear badges. Everyone who’s sane knows they can’t all be on the same side, but with so many badges it’s hard to tell who to trust. This calls for everyone who cares about the difference between right and wrong to invest themselves in the search for an Authority to which all the lesser authorities are accountable—an Authority which is the only way to determine whether the others are actual or ostensible.
If the question “who says?” doesn’t ultimately have a rock bottom answer, then when the world as we know it disappears in a debaucherous blaze of gunfights, gambling, and whorehouses, we won't really be able to say that anything has gone wrong. Most of the outlaws would think the blaze a good thing, and they have badges too.
* See Ch. 6 of Robert Reilly's Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything