Sodomites All – Classic Joe Sobran Essay on Court-Imposed Homosexual ‘Marriage’

Joe Sobran, 1946-2010

Joe Sobran, 1946-2010

Folks, I generally avoid using the term “sodomites”**–it too easily plays into the hands of anti-Christians–but who am I to make a politically correct edit on the late Joe Sobran, one of the greatest conservative writers of modern times? This essay by Sobran is even more applicable today than when he penned it in 2003, following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s creation of a newfangled “right” to homosexuality-based “marriage.”

I particularly like Sobran’s passage on liberalism:

But liberalism itself is a continual digression. Nobody can divine its next trend. Even its most profound critics, including John Henry Newman, have been unable to anticipate its particular fads. It may, or may not, embrace pedophilia next. On what principle can any perversion be ruled out?

Such is the nature of God-defying, sin-as-a-civil-right modern “progressivism.” And now the Sexual Left–having legally destroyed the meaning of marriage with the eager help of the U.S. Supreme Court–has moved on to “mainstreaming” and mandating accommodation for: (trans)gender rebels–think men with fake boobs and a penis invading female restrooms; sadomasochism; men becoming human “dogs”; and “polyamory” (anti-fidelity).

As for pedophilia, that lobby is still gearing up–mimicking the successful, manipulative tactics of the “gay liberation” movement by portraying themselves as the aggrieved “victims” of an inconvenient “orientation.” (See this “support group” for “Minor Attracted Persons,” or MAPs.) Of course, we know who the real victims are.

If only more conservatives who possessed the moral clarity of Joe Sobran! –– Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera

** P.S. I will grant that “Sodomite”–linked to the abominable act that demanded God’s horrific punishment–is more accurate than “homosexual,” a 19th-Century semantic invention that itself has been declared anathema by today’s LGBTQ activists. (They prefer “gay” for men and women–which we put in quotes because it’s essentially self-serving propaganda.) Homosexual (as a noun)–though used clinically at first–came to imply a special personhood to de facto homo-sexual sinners, i.e., an innate or at least inherent–even proud!–self-identity based on his or her inclination toward same-sex deviance. Logical (and biblical) thinkers must never acquiesce to such a false identity–unless we also are prepared to label and confirm people as (inherent or inborn) liars, “pornos,” gossipers, drunks, etc., according to their besetting sinful thoughts and behaviors.


Here is Sobran archivist Fran Griffin’s introduction to the piece:

Massachusetts was the first state to allow so-called same-sex “marriage.” Here is a classic Joe Sobran column, Sodomites All, written in 2003, discussing marriage, divorce, contraception, sin, rationalization, perversion — and the stellar example of his stepfather. Read it below or at

MAY 26, 2016


Sodomites All

By Joe Sobran
Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation

[11/27/2003] — The supreme court of Massachusetts has ordered the state’s legislature, within 180 days, to revise the law to accommodate same-sex “marriage.” Judicial arrogance is nothing new, but this takes the cake. The court isn’t even pretending that it’s merely “interpreting” the law; it’s demanding that elected officials legislate a perversion of the ancient and universal understanding of the most basic social institution in the world.

Now it’s up to liberal Massachusetts to do what neither any other state nor the U.S. Congress has ever had the fortitude to do: impeach justices who flagrantly abuse their office and usurp power. If it fails to do so, there are indeed no limits.

Did anyone see this coming? Well, yes. A long time ago. When the law legitimated divorce, it effectively reduced marriage to the status of a more or less temporary sexual contract. It wasn’t only Catholics who saw that this might lead to anything, even if nobody could imagine that it would elevate even sodomy to equal status with natural relations.

On the other hand, maybe someone did imagine it, but refrained from predicting it for fear of sounding absurd and disgusting. G.K. Chesterton, prescient as always, wrote of “the superstition of divorce,” by which he meant that if there was such a thing as divorce, there was really no such thing as marriage. Elsewhere he pointed out that a law, like a dog, follows its own nature; when we make a law, its inner logic may lead to all sorts of consequences we can’t foresee.

Many people did foresee that divorce would, quite logically, reduce marriage to the level of fornication; but they should also have seen that it would, just as logically, reduce marriage to the level of sodomy.

As the “gay” Catholic pundit Andrew Sullivan recently crowed, “We are all sodomites now.” He meant that by accepting contraception as normal, the great majority of Americans have surrendered any basis for condemning homosexual acts.

Even more recently, Sullivan has written that he can no longer bear to attend Mass, because of the Church’s “intolerance” of homosexuality. Since he has also announced that he is HIV-positive, you might think he’d have certain second thoughts; but apparently not. Apparently St. Paul’s warnings to the Romans about the natural penalties of sodomy — written long before anyone had heard of AIDS — prove only that St. Paul was “homophobic.” Of course in those days we were not all sodomites yet.

“The world’s gone mad today, And good’s bad today,” as the (sodomite) Cole Porter wrote in “Anything Goes.” Prophetic, eh? Two or three generations ago even a sodomite could see where we were headed! And today, a sodomite who dares to call himself a Catholic actually celebrates the fact that we have now gotten there. Congratulations, Mr. Sullivan.

I once knew a man, now dead, who had divorced, left the Church, and married a divorced Catholic woman with two children. He knew what the Church had to say about that. He knew what his pious parents thought about it. Did he complain about the Church’s “intolerance”?

Never. He taught his stepchildren to say grace before meals and sometimes took them to Mass. One of them, in fact, became a Catholic in large part because of his influence, though he didn’t realize it.

That was my stepfather. I was the boy. I never heard him breathe a word against the Church. He never confided his feelings to me, but after I became a Catholic I slowly came to understand. He could commit what he knew were sins, but he couldn’t bear to try to justify them to a child. Unlike so many lapsed Catholics, he never suggested that he was right and the Church was wrong. Dear old man, whatever your sins, may God have mercy on you for that! In spite of everything, you taught me humility, grace, and charity.

But I digress, rather spectacularly, from the topic of the latest ruling of the supreme court of Massachusetts, which has already earned the praise of Senator Edward Kennedy. Who — to digress again — is the youngest brother of the president who was assassinated 40 years ago, having been elected despite the wholly unfounded suspicion that he would rule America as an agent of the Vatican. By now, as I have often pointed out, the Kennedy family has been thoroughly cleared of any such suspicion. If anything, the enemies of the Church owe the Kennedy tribe their deepest gratitude for saving America from Catholic influence.

To give Senator Kennedy his due, we may add that he has also done his part to save America from Protestant influence, to the extent that Protestantism retains elements of the Faith. This too was utterly unforeseen in 1960. Senator Kennedy himself — never a very imaginative man — would have thought it bizarre to predict that by the year 2003 he would become a defender of sodomy in any form.

But liberalism itself is a continual digression. Nobody can divine its next trend. Even its most profound critics, including John Henry Newman, have been unable to anticipate its particular fads. It may, or may not, embrace pedophilia next. On what principle can any perversion be ruled out?

Human cynicism is bottomless. So is its rationalization. Original sin includes the endless inventiveness of self-justification, scandal, and seduction. Sullivan, like so many liberals (though he calls himself a conservative), is too self-absorbed to consider, or care, whether he is helping lead others into mortal sin.

The Massachusetts ruling hardly comes as a shock. Yet again a court has suddenly “discovered” that the latest liberal fad is a constitutional imperative.

This is fishy on its face. Are we expected to believe that the right to “marry” a member of one’s own sex was implicit in the state’s constitution all along, and that the court only happened to realize this just now, when homosexual propaganda has become fashionable? What a coincidence!

It reminds one of another judicial “discovery” that a constitutional right of “privacy” forbids laws protecting unborn children from violent death — a realization that had eluded everyone since 1789, but suddenly occurred to the U.S. Supreme Court just when abortion had become trendy.

Setting aside the merits of the particular issues, such arbitrary judicial fiats are directly opposed to the very principle of the rule of law of which the courts are supposed to be the pillars. Even those who like the results should be alarmed when a tiny group of men, unelected and appointed for life, can impose their will on a whole society this way.

If these justices aren’t impeached for their coup against marriage, it will only confirm that the people of Massachusetts have no defense against an irresponsible judiciary. But we probably can’t expect the legislature to take such a step. Liberals like high-handed courts and depend on them to achieve their agenda, especially its unpopular features. Their favorite way of dodging responsibility is to say, “The Constitution made us do it!” — especially when they’re making constitutional law meaningless.


This column was published originally by The Wanderer newspaper on November 27, 2003.

Help the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation promote the latest Sobran anthology by making a donation today online, by phone,
or by mail. FGF is a tax-exempt organization under the 501(c)(3) tax code of the Internal Revenue Service. Contributions to the foundation are tax-deductible. The columns by Joe Sobran, a syndicated columnist for over 35 years, are copyright (c) 2016 by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation. All rights reserved.

This article may be forwarded if credit is given to the author and

To post or reprint, contact Fran Griffin at

Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation
713 Park St., SE
Vienna, VA 22180

877-726-0058 (tollfree)


Order the new collection of Joe Sobran’s columns: Subtracting Christianity: Essays on American Culture and Society

Just $27 postpaid.
Order online or send a check to:

FGF Books
713 Park St.,SE
Vienna, VA 22180
or call: 877-726-0058

This article was posted on Thursday, May 26th, 2016 at 7:59 am and is filed under "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", "Gay" Subversion of Institutions, "Sexual Orientation"/"Gender Identity" and the Law, News, Supreme Court. You can follow any updates to this article through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Support Americans for Truth about Homosexuality

Americans For Truth
P.O. Box 340743
Columbus, OH 43234

Peter's Lifesite News Articles'

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Peter's Lifesite News Articles'

Americans for Truth Radio Hour

Americans for Truth Academy

Peter's Lifesite News Articles'