The Solicitor General has advised the Court in his legal brief: "Moral opposition to homosexuality, though it may reflect deeply held personal views, is not a legitimate policy objective that can justify unequal treatment of gay and lesbian people". The extent to which "moral opposition" ever justifies unequal treatment in a government is an intriguing, lofty question, but the Solicitor General has apparently concluded that the answer is: never. His argument is that equality of the individual always trumps morality when the popular sway says it must, and thus it seems to be the logical end of moral dissent altogether. The sentiment of William Penn that "Right is right, even if everyone is against it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it" no longer resonates in our land. One might as well say the tyranny of the majority has not only arrived, it has become a vicious head which has consumed its own tail, and it has come in the guise of equality and false virtue.

Please remember that the tax benefit in issue was and is only temporary, because it is based upon the inviolate rule of Genesis that all of men die at least once, and the necessary corollary thereto, that every partnership eventually ends, if only by the death of one partner. Natural death means taxes, and it was for this reason that the marital inheritance tax deferment was put in place as means of grace. We will not force the grieving widow and her children from their home in order to pay a death tax; rather, we will give her a reprieve until her death eventually and inevitably comes, and we will receive the tax from her estate and the presumably grown (or more grown) children at that time. The "tax break" (which is really a deferment) protects hearth, home, and children against the ravage of death. One might argue that in the age of the two income household, and the concurrent decline of marriage, a special marital deferment is even more necessary for the surviving financial partner than it was in the age of Ruth. Nonetheless, it must not be forgotten that the policy was made for the benefit of the wild republic of the family, and never intended for the benefit of the mere individuals. It is the rump of that wild republic, the children, who have become lost in the debate over individual equality. It is as if Edmund Spenser's dragon, the insatiable emblem of selfish individuality, a beast that devoured her own babies for the temporary sate of birth, has become the new standard of immorality, and the banner of the Red Cross Knight has disappeared from the field of battle. The landscape is a countryside of obsessive- compulsive, pre-occupied individual rights and equality, but yet a democracy of wrong and irresponsibility. Children will indeed suffer in this wilderness, and the inevitable repeal of DOMA, by popular will, will crown the individual person over the collective family: the silly, perfunctory, needless triumph of a fully-grown affluent matron, over the indefensible orphan infant child, and a triumph over man. It makes one wonder who the real "bullies" are.

Now I do not want to brag, but I have devised through this probable repeal of DOMA a permanent estate tax solution for this cowardly new world. Since the family and morality is no longer of any importance in comparison with individual equality, I think it would be a good tax suggestion for every father who is in declining health with a taxable estate to divorce his wife and marry his son, or even grandson, and so on for each successive generation. Similarly, every mother in declining health might consider divorcing her husband and marrying her granddaughter and so on, from generation to generation. With two children on average per household, taxes may be avoided in perpetuity, and of course abortion may be a useful estate planning tool. Since children by conception are not a risk under this concept; incest is, at best, merely an argument of "moral opposition". In this manner the estate taxes may be avoided permanently from generation to generation for the individual, and equality shall be fully maintained for all individuals, excepting of course those rare and exceptional fools who vowed to be married 'til death do you part' and actually kept their promises. If the tax man happens to question the legality of this perpetual multi-generational tax shelter, one can always offer up the very same cogent defense as the Solicitor General in the DOMA case: "Moral opposition to homosexuality, though it may reflect deeply held personal views, is not a legitimate policy objective that can justify unequal treatment of gay and lesbian people".

DOMA did not really defend marriage anyway. If we, as believers in Christ, really wanted to defend marriage we would have repealed "no fault divorce" which is an entrenched individual right in every state. The battle over marriage was lost in this country within the past century, and it was lost entirely by heterosexuals. The proof is the grim modern statistic that half of all marriages in America end in divorce. Civil marriage is not holy, is indefensible, and is irretrievably lost, and it was lost decades ago. The remaining battle concerns the terms of the surrender, and whether or not the remaining losing soldiers will be able to keep their faith for their own sustenance and defense. We live in the age or partnerships of convenience but not marriage, and the systematic attack and assault against the family. It is a sad estate, and it is a tragic loss as ancient as the pride of Jerusalem. Our people cannot or will not see the logical end of where these things may lead. Just as they do not see, they do not hear, but if they listened very closely they might hear the lonely, tearful imprecation of The Only True Prophet, Priest, and King: "...how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing".

Come Lord Jesus, Come.

Henry P. Wall is with the law firm of Bruner, Powell, Wall and Mullins, LLC in Columbia, SC