quote:

The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is SINGLE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

Well, societies have always forbidden that, there were laws against it. Now sure, single people are inclined to push the fences and jump over them, particularly if they are in love with each other and going onto marriage, but THEY ALWAYS KNEW THEY WERE DOING WRONG. In this case the Supreme Court said, take those fences away they can do whatever they like, and they didn’t address at all what status children had, what status the commons had, by commons I mean the rest of the United States, have they got any standing in this case? They just said no, singles have the right to contraceptives - we mean singles have the right to have sex outside of marriage. Brushing aside millennia, thousands and thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, culture and setting in motion what we have....

It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but WHAT THIS COURT CASE SAID WAS YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. SOCIETY NEVER GAVE YOUNG PEOPLE THAT RIGHT, FUNCTIONING SOCIETIES DON’T DO THAT, THEY STOP IT, THEY PUNISH IT, THEY CORRAL PEOPLE, THEY SHAME PEOPLE, THEY DO WHATEVER. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

quote:

This year, the Supreme Court will render judgment on the institution of marriage. Though most of us don’t realize it, the Court first did so forty-one years ago in Eisenstadt v. Baird, a decision that gravely wounded marriage and set the nation on a course of gradual debilitation by RULING THAT STATES COULD NOT RESTRICT THE SALE OF CONTRACEPTIVES TO UNMARRIED PEOPLE.

In its forthcoming decision, the Court may give marriage the legal coup de grace. Or it may surprise us, redeem itself, and use the occasion to correct the drift of legal thought on sexuality, marriage, and the rights of children. All three are inextricably linked....

With Eisenstadt, the Court dismissed marriage as the basic institution for begetting and raising children, and in a couple of pages of writing, rendered obsolete the experience of millennia. Prior to that time, those who intended to raise children together were expected by tradition, common sense, and culture to marry first. The law protected these expectations....

.... A FUNCTIONING SOCIETY DEMANDS THAT EACH CITIZEN CHANNELS HIS SEXUAL CAPACITIES IN WAYS APPROPRIATE TO THESE TWO TASKS (PROCREATION AND CHILD-RAISING). THAT IS, IT DEMANDS MARRIAGE.

THE CORE STRENGTH NEEDED TO DO THIS IS CHASTITY, a virtue always necessary but expressed differently at different stages in life - WHEN SINGLE, WHEN COURTING, AND WHEN MARRIED. Functional societies foster chastity and sanction its violation. But in Eisenstadt, the Supreme Court threw chastity out the window by endorsing premarital sex at a constitutional level....

In America, the chaos from Eisenstadt must eventually be checked. If not by the Supreme Court and Congress, then by whatever government will follow after the collapse of our present order. Sexual license and republican liberty cannot live together. One of them will supplant the other. EITHER WE BECOME A SEXUALLY RESTRAINED PEOPLE - A FORM OF SELF-CONTROL NEEDED FOR INSTITUTIONS THAT DEPEND ON LIBERTY - OR, AS WE BECOME MORE AND MORE SEXUALLY UNRESTRAINED, WE WILL NEED THE ALL-HELPING STATE TO DO WHAT WE WON’T BE ABLE TO DO FOR OURSELVES….

With Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Supreme Court rejected the experience of millennia and set in motion the gradual weakening of America. Future generations may rank this as the single most destructive decision in the history of the Court. Will the forthcoming decisions in Hollingsworth v. Perry [the federal appeals court ruling overturning California's Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples,] and United States v. Windsor [the federal appeals court ruling which found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional] be ones that rank right alongside it, by delivering a legal coup de grace to marriage? Or will this Court be known for beginning the restoration of sexual and family sanity by preserving and protecting the core of society?