Recently the Supreme Court of the United States of America legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The question, ‘why should we talk about the US Supreme Court’s decision’, is a good one and can be responded to in one or two sentences.

It must be accepted without any doubt that the Supreme Court of the United States of America is the most responsible court of the world. Hence, the decisions of the US Supreme Court require our careful and serious attention.

The court established four premises and on the basis of those premises, the Court, as a conclusion, legalized same-sex marriage in all the states of the US. The decision of the court can be summed up as follows:

1, ‘[T]hat the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy’. 2, ‘[T]he right to marry is fundamental’. 3, ‘A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and edu­cation.’ 4, ‘[T]his Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order.’

On the basis of these aforementioned premises the court concluded: ‘The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex cou­ples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.’

In dissenting notes, the Chief Justice John Roberts  and Justice Antonin Scalia, established a strong and very interesting counterargument, and they concluded that it was not under the jurisdiction of a committee of 9 unelected judges to determine what is fundamental and what it ought to be.

In a socio-legal perspective, law, in human societies, is not to determine the direction of societal goals rather it is to supplement the social process. One must always remember the fact that law is not the substance but a procedure.

“The family is the nucleus of civilization”, an American historian and prolific writer Will Durant has argued. Biologically and historically speaking, marriage is/was a union between a man and a woman (contract between two members of the opposite-sex) and the foundation of the institution of family in a given society. In a family, couples live, produce and rear their children and thus the survival of human race is on. But when there is no marriage (in biological sense); will there be any family? Or will there be any child? If the answer is a big no, then shouldn’t we say any attempt which intends to destroy the institution of marriage and family is nothing but a war against humanity?

The court while establishing its argument did mention love, intimacy and social significance of marriage, however, it seems that the court ignored the biological approach to marriage.

For instance, sharp and constant population decline in Europe (Europe legalized same-sex marriage a decade ago) is an illustration of the fact that it (legalization of same-sex marriage) demeans the institution of family, or to be more accurate, the family of procreation. Do we still need any other piece of evidence to establish a nexus between same-sex marriage and population decline or destruction of family of procreation?

In brief, destruction or termination of the institution of family visibly and vocally demonstrates the destruction and the end of human civilization.

Justice Kennedy interestingly argued, “their immutable nature dictates that same-sex mar­riage is their only real path to this profound commitment.”

But he conveniently overlooked the fact that love is, although, a natural phenomenon yet its expression is always culturally and socially determined and defined. As we observe, however, liberals’ dilemma is that they don’t have any visible line to differentiate humans from beasts except some physical and bodily differences which may be natural. Sexual behavior is the most private behavior, but it needs some social constraints so that a difference might remain between humans and animals.

If we argue opposite-sex marriage was the beginning of history – and it cannot be the end of history – I seriously fear that ‘the legalization of incest’ will probably be the end of this modern era of human history.