You know your society is in bad shape when even its conservatism is based on Darwinism. Unfortunately, this is exactly the state of jurisprudence that has manifested in the oral argumentation for the Obergefell “gay marriage” case.
This revelation appeared in an exchange between Justice Breyer and the lawyer for the conservative side. Breyer moved to preempt some standard conservative arguments in the homosexual marriage debate:
JUSTICE BREYER: I don’t know that that’s — I mean, leaving that to the side, I thought that I heard the answer to the question being given in respect to tradition of 2000 years, and to the democratic ballot box and so forth was quite simple. What I heard was, one, marriage is fundamental. I mean, certainly that’s true for 10,000 years. And marriage, as the States administer it, is open to vast numbers of people who both have children, adopt children, don’t have children, all over the place.
But there is one group of people whom they won’t open marriage to. So they have no possibility to participate in that fundamental liberty. That is people of the same sex who wish to marry. And so we ask, why? And the answer we get is, well, people have always done it. You know, you could have answered that one the same way we talk about racial segregation.
Or two, because certain religious groups do think it’s a sin, and I believe they sincerely think it. There’s no question about their sincerity, but is a purely religious reason on the part of some people sufficient?
And then when I look for reasons three, four and five, I don’t find them. What are they? So — so therefore, I’m asking — there I put a long question, but it gives you an opening to say what all of those reasons are.
So here were undercut two important arguments at the outset of the conservative lawyer’s period of argumentation. First was the argument from historic precedent (not to mention legal precedent). This was dismissed—as the liberals habitually do—with the analogy to racial segregation.
Second was the rejection of the religious argument. Just because some people think homosexuality is a sin is no reason to outlaw it, Breyer argued. After all, it’s just some people, and this is merely a “religious” reason.
This line of questioning is nothing more than intimidation. It effects two important bulwarks for the humanists: first, it places a stigma on anyone who would dare suggest “religion” has any place in jurisprudence. Second, and more importantly, it establishes that the presuppositional foundation of the arguments will be humanistic and only humanistic. This is human autonomy hijacking jurisprudence.
It was at this point that the conservative voice caved to the intimidation which pervades our land—including many and most of our “religious” reasonings. Here would have been a perfect opportunity to remind the Justices that the “merely religious reason” was a precedent of the vast majority of Western Civilization precisely because it had been based upon the Word of God, and that it was only by that God that these Justices had any authority to begin with. By dismissing that Word, the Justices dismissed the very authority of the bench upon which they sit. At that point, they become the outlaws and the founders of social chaos.
That, I admit, would have taken a miracle in this already far-backslidden society. But even a glimmer of defense of religion would have been—especially in the face of a liberal Justice’s outright dismissal of it. Instead, we got outright capitulation. Here’s was the lawyer answered:
MR. BURSCH: Justice Breyer, those answers one and two are not our answers.
JUSTICE BREYER: Good.
MR. BURSCH: Our answer number one is that the marriage institution did not develop to deny dignity or to give second class status to anyone. It developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, arise from biology.
Now, imagine a world today where we had no marriage at all. Men and women would still be getting together and creating children, but they wouldn’t be attached to each other in any social institution.
Now, the — the marriage view on the other side here is that marriage is all about love and commitment. And as a society, we can agree that that’s important, but the State doesn’t have any interest in that.
If we’re trying to solve that social problem I just described, where there’s no marriage, we wouldn’t solve it by saying, well, let’s have people identify who they are emotionally committed to and recognize those relationships. [Emphases added.]
In other words, the pro-homosexual marriage side should lose this case because the state has no interest in the love and commitment aspects of marriage, but it does (so the lawyer argues) have an interest in children being raised in an institution where their biological parents are “attached” to each other.
Whatever the merits of that argument may be, the sentiment is about 50 years behind the times and the jurisprudence regarding easy divorce, no-fault divorce, abortion, etc.
But the real tragedy here is the type of argument used. First, note, it is based on a view that marriage “developed” to suit certain needs in society. This view in and of itself is evolutionary. But the Darwinism is confirmed more strongly in the very same sentence: “developed to serve purposes that . . . arise from biology.”
However intimately related marriage may be to biology and reproduction, it did not “develop,” and it certainly does not exist “to serve purposes that arise from biology.” It was instituted by God, by divine fiat and divine design for the purpose of dominion in the earth. This dominion includes being fruitful and multiplying (Gen. 1:26, 28), but is not reduced to it or based upon it.
And remember, this Darwinist “developed from biology” view is being advanced by the guy who is supposed to be arguing the conservative position. This is the expression of conservativism being advanced in the highest court of the land. It is humanistic.
By adopting the naturalistic (humanistic) presuppositions, the conservative loses the case from the outset. He agrees to ban any discussion of “sin” and “religion” from jurisprudence, and in doing so must accept as natural—and therefore legitimate to a large degree if not fully—behaviors which Divine fiat and design call “sin” and “abomination.”
All that can follow after this point is a wrangling about what nature wants. The will of God is replaced by the will of nature. But nature is a comprehensive thing. As Pope eloquently said, in a world where “nature” is the rule, “Whatever is, is right.” If marriage “developed to serve purposes that . . . arise from biology,” big deal. The same can be said for anything—including homosexuality. Homosexuality, in a naturalistic world, must have developed to serve purposes that arise from biology. Why then should it be denied the same nature-derived privileges that dignify heterosexual marriages? Sure enough, that is the exact argument upon which the Justices seem to be hung up.
In such a world of humanistic presuppositions, the best any such “conservative” can do is to maintain a holding action. In this world, the best conservativism can do is be a drag, a delay, on the ever-turning world of nature.
But this means that conservatism in such a world is nothing more than slow progressivism instead of immediate progressivism. It’s only a matter of time under either expression before humanism wins. After all, both are really just expressions of the humanism at their roots.
And that, friends, is why conservatism loses. It abandons the Word of God at the outset and adopts the humanists presuppositions. And those who deny God, God will deny. Don’t expect God’s blessings until you’re willing to be radical for God.