Judges hasten cultural decline
Waterbury Republican-American ^ | May 17, 2008 | Editorial

Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:12:16 AM

People gaze in disbelief at the cultural landscape all the divorce, cohabitation, promiscuity, sexually transmitted disease, single moms, ill-mannered children, failing public schools, substance abuse, domestic violence, abortions, pornography and incivility and can't fathom how America fell this far this fast.

No one event triggered this devolution, but it undeniably was pushed along many times by the moral relativism of the last 50 years, when most of society's widely accepted norms were undermined by the quicksand of nonjudgmentalism; when the concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, were abolished in favor of differences that were to be respected if not celebrated, and codified when necessary to surmount widespread public opposition.

Paradoxically, people and institutions whose beliefs do not permit them to tolerate the most abhorrent differences were judged to be evil. Through rigid enforcement of increasingly fascist speech and thought codes, relativists turned America into a nation of lip-biters who with their silence condoned as normal behaviors and beliefs that are irrefutably unnatural and inherently immoral.

At every step of this long downward cultural march were men and women in black robes, activist judges eager to take out another of society's underpinnings under the guise of some spurious, high-sounding goal. And at every step, relativists declared that the latest judicial fiat freeing another genie of man's worst impulses would, inexplicably, make society stronger, fairer, safer, better.

Thursday's California Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage followed the script, but was at best redundant its Massachusetts counterpart broke this ground four years ago with the identical one-vote margin and was more symbolic than significant. Homosexuals already enjoy all of the rights and benefits of traditional marriage under California law, which treats homosexuality and heterosexuality as functional equivalents.

No, the ruling merely answered homosexuals' purely emotional plea for cultural acceptance by giving civil unions their proper label "marriage" the will of Californians, as democratically expressed twice, and the dark societal consequences be damned. Far from being a seminal ruling, the decision merely inched the homosexual agenda ahead and drove yet another nail in the culture's coffin.