Radical Left Strikes Again – hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
The Radical left has one rule. You must accept their doctrine 100% unquestioned. Not only accept. Embrace it. Celebrate it. Even if it is violently against everything you hold dear. Failure to do so makes you a repugnant human being. And their view on your views? Those views are wrong. Morally objectionable and therefore have no place in society. They are not required to even understand your position let alone permit you to exercise it.
Another example today where I don’t even care about the issue – it was the execution by the Radical left. The SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage came out today (pun intended). Honestly, this issue isn’t high on my give-a-crap-meter. Shack up, just pay the same marriage penalty to the IRS I pay. But you aren’t going to do get married in my church and I am not going to celebrate your lifestyle nor embrace it in mine. Not good enough for the left. The Radicals must cast the opposition as depraved. Whatever your position, the majority opinion was a personal assault against anyone that disagreed. Justice Scalia makes the case much better than I:
But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “dis- parage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history.
It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
Scalia says that the court’s holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.
It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.
In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.
But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.