Dobson: SCOTUS ruling will presage the “fall of Western civilization.”

Jim:

Just so you know, many states including here in SC are forced to do same-sex marriages by the federal court system. We and other states have a Constitutional amendment added to our state constitutions prohibiting same-sex marriage. And yes, there has been a rush to marriage in this state by the homosexuals.

…..we might say that there is an initial “rush” to marry among homosexual couples, but when you look at the overall numbers after a couple of years, the numbers aren’t that great. Nationwide, if 3.5% of adults are homosexual, that’s seven million individuals. If they married at the same rate as heterosexuals, you’d expect about 1.75 million marriages. Gallup reports about 390,000 homosexual “married” couples, and the Census Bureau estimates about 252,000. So at this point, the overall marriage rate is about a fifth to a seventh of the marriage rate for heterosexuals—that may change over time.

Put differently, “rush” depends on how you define it. High publicity, “storm the license office” initially, absolutely, but marrying at the rate of heterosexuals—not yet.

And Dobson? I think he overstates the case. If indeed homosexuals differ from heterosexuals in more than just what sex they prefer—and anyone who has seen a “pride” parade or picture from the Fulsome Street Fair would have to guess this—then there is a real hazard of homosexual marriage. Specifically, some of the relational habits of homosexuals become a matter of public record. If they can’t hold a marriage together, or constitute a high rate of domestic violence, it’s now indisputable.

And that’s why Dobson overstates the case. Government is not into family law because they love wedding cakes and ice sculptures and throwing birdseed, but rather because of the need to protect the vulnerable when the relationship ends through death, divorce, abandonment, whatever. If we remember the original need for family law and do what it takes to keep government’s eyes on the ball, “marriage” then becomes irrelevant for anyone who does not have a naturally “weaker vessel” in their family.

Like homosexuals. So this storm may pass simply because of the initial reason government got into family law at all.

I was reading a book (by an evangelical) about Amish, and she pointed out that Amish make their rules and decisions based on the common good—the common good for the majority–, while general American society is now making laws based on the good for the minority. Not necessarily the good for the majority, or even opposed to it.

I see this happening in this issue. Though people, even some Christians, want to paint it as a non-moral issue and rather a compassion issue.