BIBLE LESSENS

Massachusetts’ Supreme Court decided Tuesday that gay people should be allowed to marry. Fortunately, conservatives are taking it in stride.

“We must amend the Constitution if we are to stop a tyrannical judiciary from redefining marriage to the point of extinction,” thundered Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, from the pulpit of The New York Times.

One may reasonably wonder why the council, which promotes the Judeo-Christian notion of family and marriage because “God exists,” fears a human law’s effect on an institution created by God. Usually when God feels threatened, he does things such as wipe out evildoers and spare the good. Conservatives tend to feel God needs protection.

It’ll be interesting to see this go to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will probably ultimately be put in the uncomfortable position of deciding a case in which one side says it’s correct because “the Bible says so.” If a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage is passed first, it’s that the Supreme Court will have to decide on. Either way, the conservatives are going to have to come up with an argument that has nothing to do with God ... because that’s a sure ticket to a bunch of Supreme Court justices giving the okay to gay marriage, pained as they may be by having to do so.

For a brain-bending look at how the conservatives justify their position, check out the council’s question-and-answer page. Although it doesn’t explain how judges that have granted a freedom are “tyrannical,” it does provide such gems of circular reasoning as:

“Marriage is not a creation of the law. Marriage is a fundamental human institution that predates the law and the Constitution. At its heart, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists.”

Cool, eh? The council can’t even make sure its own attack on the decision (it’s saying the law can’t redefine marriage to include gays because “marriage is not a creation of the law”) actually precludes the law redefining marriage to include gays (because heterosexual “marriage” existed before the law codified it -- like long-term gay relationships now).

It’ll be a hoot hearing such arguments before U.S. Supreme Court justices. The more the council draws counsel from the Bible, the more it’ll be lessening its chances to win its case.