Before I go totally dark on this topic I want to be clear on the recent ruling by the Supreme Court (same-sex pseudogamy) and my perspective. Despite what many believe and many purvey, the policy is not liberating but destructive. This policy will serve to destroy people like me, if in fact it does anything to liberate people to marry who they wish.

Here are my views on the matter. On this topic, no one has changed my mind because no one has attempted to–the strategy has always been accusation and condemnation, not reason and logic.

• What people do in their own home and lives I cannot control nor do I care to. But it is naive to think that what we do in private doesn’t coarsen or sweeten the culture and the air we all breathe.  Two adult men may consent to a duel to the death, doesn’t mean we permit it.
• I gave up long ago convincing the gov’t that marriage is the indissoluble bond between one man and one woman.  However the state defines marriage is however the state defines marriage.  On that topic per se, I no longer care for I have already secured the backing of an institution on what marriage is supposed to be. But, unfortunately, the metastasizing state won’t stop at it’s newest frontier.
• A woman may insist, and the state may grant, that she is entitled to the benefits of an all-male education. But can she really have an all-male education? For the record, what we call marriage in this country is a total absurdity but that’s my two cents. If the state can say a man can marry a man, it can easily say and enforce anything it chooses and will use this new tool to bring down political dissent, starve off the Church and put people like me on the railroad to destitution. I guess some of us just don’t evolve fast enough.

I object to the Supreme Court ruling not because it grants men to marry men, or women to marry women, but because it  represents a threat to my freedoms: speech, expression, religion and thought. You may wish to celebrate this day, but for me it portends to be the financial, social and physical destruction of all that I have worked for and hold dear. I know the tendency of government, I know the tendency of people and those with power and this train has been coming for a long time predictably passing every station along the way. Make no mistake:

• We now live in perilous times if one cannot say “I support traditional marriage” without fear of persecution: job loss, penalties, perhaps jail or some virtual gulag.  Already my daughters have been threatened on campus–the so called bastion of dissent—for traditional stances. The CEO of Mozilla and inventor of Javascript had to resign his job for exercising his legal and ordinary right as a citizen–he supported traditional marriage. Chic-fil-A executives also proclaimed the support for traditional marriage to the denial of licenses in cities–even Bloomberg knew the illegality of this denial and said so much. Carrie Prejean, a name no one would otherwise remember, was slandered for her belief in traditional marriage. I have asked members of my family to refrain from all political discussions out loud and on social media for their own safety; we are now muted and free speech is only that which is sanctioned by the those in power, so congratulations. Yet, even if I say nothing, as Thomas More learned, the fight will still be brought to one’s door. This juggernaut won’t stop until it submits everything to it, body, mind and soul. This is the end of free speech, thought and conscience. Today it is mine; tomorrow will be yours.
• Dissenting institutions, particular churches and religious universities will be marked for tax benefit denial and other punitive measures to bring them to heel. This will happen, mark my words, and my giving will necessarily change. If I have to deny donations to LLS and Cancer research charities that I regularly give to so that I can pay the “tax” on my church contributions, then guess what? So now it impacts everyone else too.
• Social media friends have objectified me and my views as evil, a necessary step to implementing more violence toward me. It’s easy to destroy a bigot, a pig, a rat, a wild and brute animal, not so easy to destroy James, husband and father of three. Go ahead, shape the language, it will be easier for societies conscience when we lay starving in the street or bleeding with a bullet in my head, accused of a hate crime. The state nods with approval, you nod with approval.
• Do not say I have religious freedom. Like every issue, this one is not about equality but about power and its exercise. When Indiana tried to shore up the concerns of people like me, they were bludgeoned to death by society and the media. They were labeled as haters and bigots and the governor buckled. If our constitution does not protect the outliers like me, it really protects no one.
• This policy will serve to rip asunder families like mine. It will now be considered abusive for parents to teach their children tradition. Parents will be put in jail and children will be put in CPS. And somehow, this will be for everyone’s good. Right.

The policy also sets a bad precedent. We, as a nation, discriminate–yes we do. People under the age of 21 may not be served alcohol but are able to vote and take a bullet in the military. But can we really marry who we love and commit too? You think? Does the recent ruling constitute the governments authority to decide who can have sex with whom? If you say, no, of course not; marriage is not about sex but but about commitment or dedication or love, then consider:

• Two adult men who live together, share domestic responsibilities, visit each other in the hospital, care for each other when they are sick and show dedication and commitment fitting of a married couple—should they be allowed to marry? Would your answer be different if I revealed that the two adult men I have just described are bachelor brothers?
• One man and one woman want to marry but they are not allowed to due to “antiquated” consanguinity laws. Theoretical? Ask Patrick Stübing, an unemployed locksmith in jail for violating Germany’s consanguinity laws, and his sister Susan, who want to do just that. They’ve already produced four healthy children—and I’m sure they are loving parents. Why should they be denied marriage? And what if they don’t have children? Precedence: the royalty of Hawaii, ancient Egypt and the houses of Europe routinely intermarried. Einstein married his cousin and he wasn’t an idiot. Perhaps we need to evolve more.
• Isn’t it possible for three or more people show a similar level of commitment? Why deny them marriage licenses? What’s so special about two.
• American Philosopher Tom Regan and other animal rights activists believe humans are not the only creatures that should be endowed with the status of person-hood and individual rights. If this is conferred on dogs, cats and horses, then the marriage debate can be extended to inter-species couples. You think that is weird and unnatural? Maybe you should evolve a little bit more.
• A man and a woman, unrelated and of rational mind wish to marry. Their reasons for marrying are a private affair but the government won’t let them marry because it is viewed as a tactic to secure citizenship for the one that is not an American. They are not really in love but who’s to say? Since when does motive matter anyway? Can we annul the citizenship of anyone who later gets a divorce?
• Suppose, as Jeremy Irons observed, one wish to marry their son or daughter–not for marital relations since it isn’t about sex, but for legal benefit: Property can be kept and expanded without government penalty in perpetuity. Should we discriminate?

Rejoice in this policy if it pleases you. Fly the colors of the rainbow, ironically the symbol of the end of destruction. I, on the other hand, cannot rejoice. Our destruction has just begun.