Maybe in the future, we’ll play art, faith, evolution instead of roshambo (rock, paper, scissors). Here’s the catch: one cannot cover, crush, or cut the other because, and I repeat, they are not players in the same game.
(Lynda Sexson, Rock, Paper, Scissor, Image No. 85)
In Williamstown, Kentucky six hundred miles from the sea, Ken Ham is building an ark.
No scaled-down museum model, this ark will be a museum unto itself, the first full-sized replica of Noah’s original. Upon completion in 2016, the Ark Encounter, as it’s called, will be the largest timber-frame structure in the country. Its dimensions — 300 by 50 by 30 cubits — come straight from the blueprint found in Genesis, and here “blueprint” describes both the construction plan and the hermeneutic …
Next door, he plans to build a live petting zoo (two of every kind), and the plans for phase two include, in what I suspect escapes Mr. Ham’s sense of irony, a full-scale Tower of Babel ….
(Fred Bahnson, Sons of Noah, Image No. 85)
Justice Kennedy’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision is anchored in the liberty to “define and express” one’s identity. But this view of man is not as exalted as it seems. According to Kennedy, self-defined man, if he’s unmarried, remains tragically lonely, and without state recognition, might even doubt his own dignity.
Liberalism’s exalted view of man’s limitless possibilities, paradoxically enough, is not accompanied by an equally exalted view of his inner strength and resolve. One might think that liberalism would encourage individuals to trust in themselves and to be scornful of society’s staid bourgeois conventions in defining and expressing their identity.
It doesn’t. For all his purported god-like powers of self-creation, liberal promethean man is actually a weak, insecure, and isolated individual. It is not enough that he define and express his identity. He needs others to recognize it, embrace it, and celebrate it. He needs the state to confer dignity upon it.
Otherwise, he may find himself marginalized by his peers, crippled by their disapproving looks, and insecure in his choice of an identity. After all, a particular lifestyle or living arrangement may not be illegal, but it can still be viewed as dishonorable by some …
“Outlaw to outcast may be a step forward, but it does not achieve the full promise of liberty, ” explains Kennedy …
An earlier generation of liberals would have told the man to go to hell with his marriage certificate. “We don’t need no thought control,” they would have yelled. “All in all you’re just another brick in the wall!” To have the suits recognize your alternative lifestyle would have defeated the whole purpose of embracing it in the first place ….
(David Azerrad) This is a surprisingly powerful critique of Justice Kennedy’s opinion, although it’s originality lies more in its arrangement than in any original insight.
I will say again that there are stronger arguments for same-sex marriage (if you take the precedents seriously) than Justice Kennedy voices. I can’t decide if he’s getting senile or if he’s playing some long game that others have yet to recognize.
Meanwhile, I can only be glad that this evil and hubristic decision is universally scorned for its illogic and disconnection from any coherent stream of legal analysis heretofore mapped.
And soon, it will be conservatives telling the man to go to hell with his marriage certificate.
* * * * *
“In learning as in traveling and, of course, in lovemaking, all the charm lies in not coming too quickly to the point, but in meandering around for a while.” (Eva Brann)