The Supreme Court erred in its recent “same-sex” marriage decisions. It failed to consider principles that are more fundamental, namely: the “right of association” and the “right to define the particular conduct of associates.”
For instance, heterosexual couples, many milieus ago, defined their unique relationship as “the union of one man and one woman” and named it “marriage.” All cultures maintained this definition sacrosanct since time immemorial.
Persons in other forms of relationships adopted different names: partners, civil unions, Apaches, Masons, Elks, Mormons. No one ever thought of forming a new association (legal, cultural, commercial, religious, tribal or otherwise) and usurping another association’s name; they would adopt a new name – unique to it – and trust that no other organization would usurp its name.
So why do homosexuals, singularly, want to usurp the unique name of “marriage” – or of “Boy Scouts” – when their objectives are diametrically different? Does any new group have a superior right to join another established group – and then dictate a different set of rules for membership and conduct? If so, we no longer enjoy our fundamental “right of association.”
Can a disparate person claim a constitutional right to join another family or association and then demand to change the rules of its membership? Imagine the disorder and resentment the Supreme Court is inviting when it permits one group to invade and usurp what another group has maintained sacrosanct for milieus without any harm to any other.
Should our Constitution protect only the usurpers?