THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT
Let me start this post with an assertion: I don't support sodomy laws. They're a bad, ineffective way for society to express its view of homosexual relationships. Unenforceable laws have no place on the books, and sodomy laws are largely unenforceable. There are ways they might be enforced that do not entail policing bedrooms--undercover operations targeting gay bars and pick-up joints, that sort of thing, and up until the late 60s and early 70s that is how such laws were enforced. If they were enforced--enforcement efforts varied around the country from fairly robust to no effort at all. But sending undercover cops into gay bars and hangouts is a very negative way to deal with homosexuality, even supposing society had the will to. It takes precious police manpower away from enforcing more urgent matters, to say nothing of the strange and dangerous situations undercover gay patrols might find themselves experiencing. So for a host of reasons, I'm with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in this week's decision--sodomy laws are in his words "uncommonly silly," but that doesn't give the Supreme Court the authority to strike them down. This week's decision in the Lawrence case is clearly judicial overreach, and will have sweeping consequences. It's not the end of the world, just the end of the world as we have known it for thousands of years.I predict within five years, gay marriage will be a reality across the United States, overturning the definition of marriage Western society has embraced for millenia. The logic of the USSC's majority makes it inevitable. With gay marriage will come polyamorous marriage, within a few years, following the same logic. With these redefinitions of marriage will come, in a few years, gay and polyamorous divorces, and wrenching custody disputes over children and assets. Corporations will have to come to terms with these new arrangements for the purpose of determining health and retirement benefits, so expect many corporations to just cut or dramatically reduce their liability by gutting their benefit packages. Children caught up in all this will be raised in the most confusing circumstances imaginable--multiple fathers or mothers, biological parents they have never met (because gay adoption gets a boost now, as will surrogate births and various other means by which gay couples may have or obtain children), the works. The American family, for a small minority and in the eyes of the law, will become a house of mirrors.
That's only one part of the problem I see from this week's ruling. The other problem is what it will mean for the church.
Most churches today frown on the homosexual lifestyle. Where the Bible addresses homosexuality, it condemns it, and most churches rightly take their moral cues from the Bible. It is Christianity's foundational text. This week's ruling, because it is so sweeping, will open the door to lawsuits aimed at ending churches' "discrimination" against practicing homosexuals. Here's the form I expect it to take. A young man will graduate from a mainstream, well-respected seminary, probably in a conservative, evangelical denomination. He will be gay, but in the closet throughout his time in seminary. Upon graduation, he will apply for a job in a church, probably not as pastor (young seminarians tend to hit the lower ranks first) but as minister of music or youth pastor, or maybe associate pastor in a mid-sized or larger church. He will be qualified in every way--except that he will have also come out of the closet during the interview process. The church will not hire him, and he will sue it for discriminating against him. He'll lose, but that won't matter. He will have sent the church's denomination a message, and cost the local church a fortune (the ACLU or Human Rights Campaign will pick up his tab). The local church, if it is small enough, may close down as the case drags on and saps its funds. The denomination's hierarchy will look at its bylaws at the behest of its lawyers to see if there are ways to prevent future liability. More liberal denominations will change their bylaws and allow practicing homosexuals to enter its ministry force. In so doing they'll remove their legal liability, but at the expense of doctrine. More evangelical churches--those most hated by the gay rights lobbies--will not change, and will be sued repeatedly. It will take just one victory and the gay rights movement will have conquered the Christian church in America.
It might also take the form of a request for marriage. A gay couple will approach a pastor to request his services in a marriage ceremony, or they may just request the church's facilities. Perhaps it's a historic church, or the church where one of the couple's parents married years ago. The pastor will decline the request on doctrinal grounds, and get sued. Again, the gay couple will lose the case but win the war: The church will spend a fortune to defend itself, and it may end up changing its stance to deflect future liability. The church will lose in the press, which will demonize it and its pastor for their "intolerance."
Think it can't happen? There is already a lawsuit working its way through the courts demanding that the Catholic Church accept female priests. Gays already went after the Boy Scouts, taking them all the way to the Supreme Court to demand that the Scouts allow gay troop leaders. The Scouts won that case, but are losing the war that has followed as city after city pulls financial and other support and the press continues to browbeat them. Churches don't have the public-private model that the Scouts until recently enjoyed, but they do have members who are public figures. Those public figures will be called out to go on the record about such cases, and many will cave. Others will pander and join up with the plaintiffs. Churches will split over the issue.
In short, I think this week's ruling has opened the door to a wave of courtroom persecution, redefining marriage and ending the world as we know it.