Ready? "Activist judges."
Bet I know what your answer was. "Gay marriage," right? Right.
"Activist judges" is Rovespeak for "fag lovers," really. You can tell it's code because of the oafish way Junior emphasized the phrase during his fall stump speeches (think: "exaggeration"). But closer examination shows the shrewdness of this deception.
"Activist" connotes "uppity." In this context, it implies that not only is the "sanctity of marriage" under attack by these Godless homos, but that the Constitution is under attack as well by some shadowy star chamber of power-drunk, robed renegades hell bent to destroy our nation. Truth and reason tell us both are false.
First things first:
What does the "sanctity of marriage" truly mean?
Is it the sanctity of the institution?
In Christian matrimonial liturgy, as people of true Christian faith should know, the institution of marriage is of God and given by God. To people of true faith, the institution of marriage is divine and unassailable, and therefore in no jeopardy of being diminished by the acts of man -- be they gay weddings, goat weddings, or doggie divorces.
Is it the health of the institution in society?
Interesting question. Where do we stand? What is the measure? About half of American heterosexual marriages (Christian and non-Christian) end in divorce, and about 70% of men have cheated on their wives. Fewer young heterosexual couples are choosing marriage than ever before -- in fact, the only group who seems passionate about wanting to get married these days is homosexuals. If you believe marriage is a pillar of our society, which the facts certainly support, then you must also accept that the pillar was crumbling long before the gay marriage flap.
Should we as a society champion monogamy? If so, we should champion gay marriage, and those of us who are married should look to ourselves as individuals to uphold the sanctity of marriage and family in our own lives.
Tomorrow: What is an activist judge, anyway?