VALENTINE’S DAY, 2014. WHO COULD HAVE GUESSED how much would change during the decade following the February 2004 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that the state constitution required equal standing for same-sex marriage?
But the crucial question continues to raise its head: when the ancient one-man-one-woman definition of marriage is declared obsolete, at what point sliding down the slippery slope can any new definition of marriage be established?
The American Civil Liberties Union spent many months in Salt Lake City courtrooms arguing that polygamy ought to be legal, not because the ACLU loved apostate Mormons’ ideas of “plural marriage,” but because this was a back-door way to shatter the old homosexual-excluding definition of marriage.
The shock came when, a year after the Massachusetts ruling, in May 2005 a Federal judge in Utah gave his blessing to polygamy. “If King David in the Bible could have 300 wives and his son King Solomon could have 700,” he wrote, “why can’t we? Taxpayers provided for David’s and Solomon’s offspring, and they will be required to do the same for everybody else’s, too.”
Not to be outdone, the ultra-leftist 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco soon followed with several rulings. It upheld polyandry, the marriage of one woman to several men simultaneously. It also upheld “Ireland-style” mix-and-match marriage, named for former National Organization for Women bisexual President Patricia Ireland who in her autobiography described having at the same time a husband, James Humble, and a de facto marriage with lesbian lover and Socialist Worker’s Party activist Pat Silverthorn.
One three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled that it was “age-ist” discrimination to limit the age of consent for marriage, of whatever kind, and that the marriage between a seven-year-old boy and a 43-year-old man was therefore legal.
On the same day, this panel overturned all incest laws prohibiting marriage between close relatives, ruling that such laws “were based on reactionary, right-wing, discriminatory superstitions that prevented people from loving one another.” The Democrat-appointed judges approved a marriage between a 16-year-old brother and his 12-year-old sister.
The same panel weeks later upheld not just marriage between man and animal – but ruled unanimously that the “one big bed” Berkeley commune union of three men, two women and one sheep was a valid six-way “marriage.”
(These judges dismissed the argument of lawyers for PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, that this would legitimize the abuse of a sheep that had not given its consent to the “marriage.” They also dismissed lawyers from companies and the Internal Revenue Service that such a ruling would cause chaos with spousal benefits – now perforce expanded to include veterinary care and contagious animal diseases – and with how to process joint tax returns.)
Soon thereafter, the Massachusetts Supreme Court further expanded the definition of marriage. Noting that in his diaries the radical of Walden Pond, Henry David Thoreau, had described his passionate relationship with a tree, a majority of Bay State Justices ruled that a loving relationship between a human and a plant could legally constitute a marriage. (One of the judges in his ruling hinted that cannibalism might also be viewed as a kind of marriage “in which two become one flesh.”)
Genetic engineering firms in Massachusetts had sought this ruling as legal sanction for creating human-plant hybrid “children” of “married” plants and people – the first fruits of which were green-skinned blooming idiots and living couch potatoes who voted alternately for Democrats or the Green Party.
But what most surprised almost everybody was the Delaware Supreme Court. Marriage need not be limited to living things, it ruled unexpectedly during the 2008 election season. It found for a man who claimed to be “married” to his car, a 1957 classic red Thunderbird. Because of this “marriage,” the man argued, his “spouse” could not be repossessed for debt by a credit company. The high court agreed.
(The 9th Circuit unanimously rejected a similar case brought by the National Rifle Association in which a soldier – citing how Redcoat British soldiers at the time of the American Revolution referred to themselves as being “married to Brown Bess,” as their muskets were called – asserted a right to go out with the gun to which he was “married.”)
But the Delaware Justices soon went even farther, ruling in another case that a person could be “married” to his job – and that to fire him might require the employer to meet certain standards of marriage law, such as payment equivalent to alimony.
“A corporation is an abstract ‘body of the mind,’” wrote the Delaware Chief Justice for a unanimous court. “And it seems clear that the defendant is one of millions of employees who have given their love, loyalty and lives more to their corporation than they have to any flesh-and-blood spouse or children at home. We find that the defendant truly is, as he claims, married to his job.”
Weeks thereafter the 9th Circuit in California, noting that some Roman Catholic nuns ritually take wedding vows to Jesus and thereafter wear wedding rings, ruled that an environmental activist was legally “married” to “Mother Earth” in the form of the ancient pagan Greek Earth Mother goddess Gaia.
“Through this marriage,” wrote one radical Judge appointed by President Hillary Clinton (who, you will recall, as Vice President assumed the presidency after the mysterious sudden death of President John Kerry), “the defendant has the legal right to use violence in self defense to protect the body of his spouse Mother Earth from loggers and developers.”
Rumor is that before sunset on this Valentine’s Day 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court (mostly leftists appointed by “President Clinton the Greater,” as she proclaimed herself) could affirm the 9th Circuit’s “Universal Marriage” ruling. The San Francisco court declared that everyone and everything is “cosmically married” to everyone and everything else.
This ruling is already invoked to sanction the “Universal Love” curriculum in our public schools and universities that teaches kids how to “experiment freely” with every imaginable kind of sexuality. That’s now the main teacher-involved exercise and sport in physical education and biology classes. Because everyone is now married to everyone, such activities are by definition wholesome and moral.
Oh, as you probably guessed, the Valentine cards exchanged in our classrooms no longer come in the shape of hearts….but they are still red. We have not lost all traditional values in 2014.