This week, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled as unconstitutional the definition of legal marriage as exclusively between a man and woman. He wrote:
The State of California has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.
The significant, logical implication of this statement is that, in the eyes of the State of California, the child has no value.
Laws are the official promotion of that which is considered beneficial to the State, and the forbidding of that which is considered harmful to its citizens. The values dictating these laws produce a culture, or social environment, that exude a specific character.
Western Civilization is rooted in the fundamental conviction that human life is of value, is an objective good, and that the continuity of the human race is an imperative. Aristotle posited:
The family is the building block of the State.
Aquinas further elucidated that:
The family exists for the procreation and education of the child.
The civilization that results from this concept is legally and culturally focused on protecting the child-centered family, defend the institution of marriage for the sake of the child. Far from being “a matter of indifference” to the State, its natural interest in the child is the only factor that justifies the intrusion of the State into the contract of marriage. The conditions effecting its future citizens directly concern the State. Not that the State’s interests ever supersede those of the family, but the duty to protect the development of its citizens does justify interest.
Observation, history, and logic illustrate that permanent, and monogamous parental unions foster the development of a balanced, well-formed child, a future citizen upon whom depends the health of the State.
A completely different culture will result from the abandonment of the value of the child-centered family. With the California ruling, the State has declared that the child is no longer the determining, constitutive element of the family.
The interest of the Left in the entire Homosexual Marriage issue is, as always, not the perceived “rights,” or “happiness” of those it champions, but rather, the advancement of its own revolution. In his article, How Important is the Left?, David Horowitz reiterates a central theme concerning the post-Marxist Left. The revolution is no longer focused on the establishment of a Communist, economic utopia, but rather, on the nihilist destruction of civilization as we know it.