Get A First Look: NEW Website Coming May 13

  1. Dallas/Fort Worth, TX

  2. New Site Coming

  3. On Borrowed Time

  4. Lenten Mission


Good News and Bad on Gay Marriage

by Christopher A. Ferrara

In a moment of judicial sanity, New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, handed down a decision on July 6, 2006 which holds  —  to the stupefaction of liberals everywhere  —  that the New York Constitution actually does not appear to contain any right to "gay marriage."

By a vote of 4-to-2  —  that’s right, two justices thought otherwise  —  the Court held (as Newsday reported in a July 7th story) that "despite some ambiguous language, New York marriage laws permit only opposite-sex couples to marry, and that limitation does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection because lawmakers might rationally have wanted marriage laws to encourage couples that could conceive children to form stable unions, and might reasonably have favored child rearing in families with a mother and a father."

In the majority opinion he wrote for the Court, Judge Robert Smith declared: "It is not for us to say whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong… We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives."

So, as we can see, the decision is good news and bad. Good news because New York’s highest court has not (at least not yet) gone the way of the Massachusetts high court. Bad news because, as Judge Smith himself observed, there is nothing at all permanent about the court’s decision, for that decision is not based on any objective standard of right or wrong but on what "the people" happen to think at any given moment in history, whether in adopting a constitution or in voting on legislation concerning "gay marriage."

Yes, in a "democracy" it is simply impossible to predict what public morality will be tomorrow, because, as Judge Smith says, one cannot "predict what people will think generations from now." And in a democracy it is "what people think," not the immutable law of God as expounded and defended by His Church, that determines the content of civil law.

Behold the madness of liberal social order  —  the social order that resulted from Luther’s revolt against the Church, the corruption of political philosophy owing to its detachment from revealed truth and Catholic theology, and finally the revolutionary movements of the 18th and 19th centuries, which destroyed Catholic social order and left us all at the mercy of "what people will think."

And this, they tell us, is "liberty." But of course it is slavery of the worst kind: the slavery of sin enacted into law based on "what the people think." It is this very slavery from which Our Lord came to deliver us, promising that "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

But the nations of former Christendom have turned away from Christ the King, preferring the idol of Liberty that enslaves them. For this reason has the Queen of Heaven warned mankind, at Fatima and Akita, of a coming chastisement even greater than the Flood.