Enemies Of The Human Race

Society and the law are rapidly accepting homosexuality and same-sex marriage. As can be shown by recent events, there appears to be an inverse relationship (as one goes up the other goes down and vice versa) developing between society and the law's acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage and between religious freedoms and the rights of groups or individuals to express disapproval of these two ideas. This relationship is being driven in part by the fact that the latter group is essentially being labeled as “enemies of the human race”--dissenting justice Scalia's assessment of the majority's opinion-- by the activist Supreme Court who has taken it upon itself to attempt to impose same-sex marriage on a society that a significant portion has rejected when this issue has come up for a vote.

The motivating force behind the Defense of Marriage Act and supporters of it was the desire to “demean” and “degrade” homosexuals and to "humiliate" their children. This is according to the majority's opinion of the Supreme Court as stated by justice Kennedy (around pg. 23 of the opinion of of the SC section) in its recent ruling that struck down a provision of the DOMA. In his dissenting opinion justice Scalia sums up ( pg 21of the dissenting opinion section) Kennedy's argument:

[...]the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose”(ante,at 25) “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” ibid.; to “impose inequality,” ante, at 22; to “impose . . . a stigma,” ante, at 21; to deny people “equal dignity,” ibid. ; to brand gay people as “unworthy,” ante, at 23; and to“humiliat[e]” their children,ibid. (emphasis added). I am sure these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. 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 condemn, 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 “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual.

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.[...] in the majority’s telling, this story is black and white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us.

According to Charles Krauthammer and the dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia, (see pg. 23 of the dissenting opinion), the recent ruling will eventually lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage being forced upon American society. Krauthammer: “In this opinion, is the absolutely inevitable seed of essentially nationalizing gay marriage in the way Roe nationalized and abolished all the abortion laws". The legalization of same-sex marriages could lead to persecution of those that hold religious beliefs that condemns homosexuality according to Krauthammer:

It gets really sticky,” Krauthammer said on “Inside Washington.” “If the court were to decide that to deny same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, then you got Georgetown University – a Jesuit university [that has] married student housing. It’s a Catholic university. So it says it’s only going to allow heterosexuals, it will get sued. It will become an assault on religion. And the religions, which I think are sincere in their beliefs, are going to be under assault and under attack. 

This persecution is already taking place inside and outside the military. In the military those that express disapproval with homosexuals or gay marriage are being punished and outside of the military a private business in Oregon is being threatened with legal action for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. In the air force:

A 27-year veteran of the Utah Air National Guard said he was reprimanded after he wrote a letter objecting to a gay wedding in the West Point chapel and was later told to prepare for retirement because his personal beliefs about homosexuality were not compatible with the military’s policies.[...]

“My issue is so much about homosexuals serving in the military, but rather that it is being forced upon as an acceptable lifestyle abandoning our traditional values,” he wrote.[...]

He said the military has created an atmosphere where those who do not approve of homosexual conduct “must remain disapprovingly silent or face reprisal to our careers.”

“It is evident those who refuse to affirm homosexuality and openly oppose it are being severely punished,” he wrote.[...] 

“They’re trying to make examples of people early on who have religious beliefs that homosexual conduct in the military is wrong,” he said. “When these people assert their First Amendment rights, they are getting slapped down and slapped down hard.”

An army band member was punished for expressing disapproval of the repeal of the DADT:

A member of the U.S. Army Band who said he was reprimanded […] [for] serving Chick-fil-A sandwiches at a party was found guilty of three Article 15 charges.[...]

“My family likes Chick-fil-A and we like what they stand for,” he said. “I can make a statement and at least express a religious point of view at my promotion party – theoretically without any fear of reprisal.”

The soldier also tweeted about the party: “In honor of DADT repeal, and Obama/Holder’s refusal to enforce DOMA act, I’m serving Chick-fil-A at my MSG promo reception for Army today.”

The tweet came under fire from his superior officers, according to an official military document.

“As a Soldier you must be cognizant of the fact that your statements can be perceived by the general public and other service members to be of a nature bordering on disrespect to the President of the United States,” the document stated.

Attorney Wells believes Sommers is being discriminated against not only because of his Christian faith, but also because of his objections to homosexuality.

“There’s no question about it,” Wells told Fox News. “Because he is religious, because he feels that homosexual conduct is wrong for religious reasons, he is basically being persecuted.”

Here is what happens to business owners that decide to exercise and adhere to their religious freedoms and beliefs : “An Oregon man may have broken the law and is facing a state investigation after refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding, KATU reports."  What is clear from these few examples is that expressing support for or acting on one's religious beliefs regarding homosexuality is not being tolerated.

The Supreme Court has labeled supporters of traditional marriage and values-- and by extension Christianity--as enemies of the human race and has attributed ill will against homosexuals to the formers support for the values and traditions that have enabled America to become the greatest country human history has ever known. The logical extension of this analysis is for corrective action—punishment and marginalization-- by the law to be taken against those that hold traditional values. As was shown, this is already happening. According to justice Scalia, the court's ruling arms supporters of same-sex marriage and the courts with the ability to force same-sex marriage upon society. Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion( starting around pg. 18 of the dissenting opinion section) is well worth reading regarding the court's ruling and the same-sex-marriage issue.