It’s not beyond reason to assume Federal Judge Carlton Reeves brushes his teeth daily and obtains proper nourishment; that he does not store foreign objects in his ear canals and that he is thankful he was not born with clubbed feet or blindness, and would not choose either if given the choice. Because like the rest of us, Judge Reeves instinctively knows that properly caring for one’s body facilitates and promotes the purpose for which our organs, limbs, and body parts were made, ensuring good health and contributing to hopefully a longer life.
And, no doubt, every step the judge takes, even during his leisure time, is instinctively taken with an intended purpose, his actions being by nature goal-directed, perhaps following a written or mental ‘to-do’ list. The good judge is simply conforming like the rest of us, by instinct and by nature, to the principle of all things having an end to which they are directed. The acorn is directed to growing into an oak, and so forth.
And like the honorable judge, everyone learns the guiding and fundamental principle that actions and behavior that promote the intended function and purpose of any particular organ is to the long-term benefit of the organism. Behavior that is contrary to the intended purpose of the organ, or organism, is detrimental to the body’s health.
The heart’s purpose is to pump blood. So we promote the health of the heart. That which promotes the clogging of heart arteries opposes the heart’s purpose or function. This we avoid. The good judge wishes to preserve his teeth and gums, functionally to chew food for nourishment, so he brushes them daily. And so on.
Furthermore, consistent with preserving and caring for our organs’ health in this way is the fact that function trumps pleasure. The judge receives pleasure from eating but that is not the motivation for why he eats, which of course is to survive, moved by hunger not pleasure. The judge, like the rest of us, receives pleasure from sex but pleasure isn’t the primary purpose of sex as we all know, regardless of the steps one takes, since what often happens nine months later is this primary purpose will have to be given a name.
So with this in mind, here comes Judge Reeves disavowing this principle of primary purpose or goal-directed ends and rules against Mississippi’s voter-approved (87%) Constitutional Amendment that marriage is between one man and one woman. His reasoning for doing so he claims is that he, as one of several legal lemmings, understands the Fourteenth Amendment to be worded such that the God-given complementarity of sexes is discriminatory when it comes to defining or understanding what marriage should be; that it is discriminatory and offensive to understand that maleness and femaleness are complementary to each other as they are in nature and have been since before mammals walked the earth. He could have just as well ruled that nature discriminated against men by preventing them from producing milk from the breasts.
The judge’s ruling is replete with a long history of homosexual stigmatization. His (ill) legal logic is that since homosexuals have been stigmatized for so many years it is only right that they deserve now to be “married,” especially since they so desire. In support of this, in his ruling he references an old Ku Klux Klan ad depicting a black man sitting next to a white man with his hand on his crotch. The Judge of course reminds us that segregationists attempted to portray equality of races with homosexuality. The judge is himself by inference erroneously joining the choice of two men to have anal intercourse, and their being stigmatized, with the civil rights movement. It is clever. But indeed it is also interesting, not that it matters, that Judge Reeves himself is an African-American who was appointed by our sitting president, also an African-American, and who with the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, also an African-American, have been proudly declared by gay activist writers as the triumvirate that was designed to break the resistance to accepted sodomy and homosexuality in the Deep South.
To many, especially those with common sense, this is an asinine decision. And it’s asinine because politics has been injected into this decision, a decision which is irrational, opposes common sense, and as the case may be, is against what Nature has wrought. To say this judgment of the good judge is asinine and ludicrous is not unfair or out of order since there is precedent for judges making such asinine claims from the bench as seven judges together once declared that an African-American, like Judge Reeves, was not an American citizen at all (Dred Scott Case).
Constitutional experts of all stripes who have no axe to grind opine that the Constitution says nothing about what marriage is, or should be; that it is silent on whether it is to be same-sex or opposite-sex. Only a politician or ideologue can conjure such a constitutional phantasm as this ruling, a ruling in which the judge failed to even define what marriage is.
In his ruling the judge says, “Traditional values must give way to constitutional wisdom.” Mississippians living these traditional values, and students of American history, know that traditional values preceded the constitution and served as the foundation for its guiding principles, with natural law and divine revelation being integral to its content. As the English jurist, William Blackstone, put it, the Law of Moses became through Jesus Christ the font and spring of constitutional government among all peoples: “Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws…No human laws should be suffered to contradict these.” One can only surmise the judge must’ve missed this class.
As a physician I have an honest question for the good judge. The judge knows well that laws inform culture, and culture informs behavior. In declaring marriage to be between two men, the Honorable Judge’s ruling will inform the people of Mississippi that anal intercourse is something to be accepted as ‘normal’ to the point of it being the new qualifier for the revised definition of marriage. My question is: As a Mississippi doctor, trained to promote that which furthers the natural intended use of the body’s organs, should I when confronted or asked, encourage men to engage in anal intercourse as a good health practice? As well as something to be promoted by the community?
Federal judges can declare until they are blue in the face that two men can marry, and shoes are hats, spoons are forks, and dogs are cats. But for people of all races and creeds who listen to the voice of reason, to the voice of common sense, they know in their hearts and souls that these declarations and fiats are irrational and nothing more than a hypocritical charade, a juridical one at that, that will not over the long haul be sustained – at least not without force and abridgement of freedoms. In fact some may even view Judge Reeves’ ruling, and similar rulings, as itself a perversion of justice to the community at large, with the holder of common sense knowing these fiats are as perverse as the desire to copulate with a dead body, to fondle a small child, or to ejaculate semen into the large intestines of a man.
Without articulating it, people with common sense know that sexual distinctions existed before the first fish crawled onto land, and has prevailed through the ages to that time, and beyond, even to that point in time when Judge Reeves’ mother and father conceived him in conjugal union, manifesting the purpose for which their complimented sex organs were intended, he being the product of their heterosexual union, he growing into a man who has contributed to revising marriage as something other than what his parents thought it to be. People with common sense know that a man cannot marry another man any more than any person can marry a goldfish, or a can of motor oil, or his own left foot.
These same good people also know that same-sex ‘marriage’ no more exists or is possible than round squares and that sodomy counts no more as “sex” than puking up a Quarter Pounder counts as eating.
And finally, and most importantly, these same common sense folks likewise know that the sex act points beyond itself to marriage and family; the secularist seeing only the sex act. To quote a famous Confucian proverb, “When a wise man points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger.” There are a lot of people, incredibly these days, looking at the finger – including federal judges, self-absorbing homosexual activists, and many politicians – with supporters of marriage screaming all the time “It’s the moon, stupid, it’s the moon!”
I don’t know if Judge Reeves smokes cigarettes. But if he, or anyone else does, I recommend you quit. It is bad for your health. And if you don’t know why or haven’t heard why, I’ll be more than happy to explain it to you. But just to let you know – it has something to do with the moon.