Tuesday, March 26, 2013

The Supreme Court And Marriage--An Exchange Of Truth?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

The case of Proposition 8 in California has been passed around, to say the least. The people have spoken and the lower court has spoken, now the highest court in the land---the Supreme Court of the United States, will rule---or decide not to rule.

The Court will begin to hear arguments today on the constitutionality of both California's Proposition 8 and tomorrow, the constitutionality of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

This is a defining moment for America, a nation that has defined itself as "One Nation Under God."

A nation whose legal and social principles have been seen as indissoluble with the principles of biblical Christianity.

A nation founded on biblical principles now hangs in the moral balance.

Will we chose to deny the clear teaching of Scripture in regard to homosexual behavior? The Bible and biblical principles have been the historic guiding light in our culture. Will we now redefine marriage, the most fundamental component of the social structure, or will we stand against the political tide and affirm marriage as it was intended?

How will the Supreme Court rule on the most fundamental social component in human experience? Will they affirm the model instituted by God at Creation and reaffirmed by every successful civilization in history? Will they protect the model of marriage that every world religion advocates?

Or will they, as Paul described in his letter to the Roman Christians, "Exchange the truth of God for the lie"?

This moral issue has become politicized and swings more on the emotional personal stories that dominate it than the reality of what is best for children and the family, which is the cornerstone of society.

The moral issue of marriage has been purposely blurred by those who seek to redefine it, from Chief Justice John Robert's own family to a hundred other human interest stories that lend political and emotional credence to redefining marriage.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Jr's cousin is a lesbian from California. The Los Angeles Times is reporting that she and her partner who wish to "marry" will be seated in the "reserved for family" section during the hearing today.

Jean Podrasky says, "I'm so excited"---"I feel quite honored and overwhelmed."

She says of her first cousin, "He is a smart man. He is a good man. I believe he sees where the tide is going. I do trust him. I absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction."

She apparently believes that her cousin, the Chief Justice, will be influenced by "where the tide is going," as opposed to the original intent of the Constitution. And the biblical morality upon which our founding documents were framed.

Newspapers, under the guise of journalism and news, are publishing human interest stories on their front page that emotionally advocate for redefining marriage.

The Seattle Times has done what they often do when news advocates for the editorial board and the personal views of the journalists. They cloak an advocacy story as news.

Yesterday, their lead story was "Supreme Court Takes On Same-sex Marriage." While the sub-head reported that the Supreme Court will hear the cases, the front page news story was about the struggle two lesbians are enduring because one is American, the other French. Due to lack of "marriage equality," they are forced to live apart. It is long, it's in depth and it's to the point. And the point is that the Supreme Court must, in the name of decency and equality, strike down or overturn those laws that impose discomfort on these two people who are in love.

Not only are newspapers using their pages to advocate for redefining marriage, we now hear that over a hundred high profile Republicans have signed a brief imploring the Court to overturn California's Prop 8, even though it represents the will of the people. Among those signing the brief is Laura Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and other Republican politicians.

In fact, the political tide is such that ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Karl Rove on ABC's "This Week" last Sunday, "Can you imagine the next presidential campaign a Republican candidate saying flat out, 'I am for gay marriage?'"

Karl Rove responded, "I could."

This is a moment of moral confusion. A nation founded on godly and biblical principles is pushing to redefine God's model for marriage while asking God to Bless America---to "stand beside her and guide her."

People who claim to be the mainstream or moderate stream of the Republican Party are proudly claiming the allegiance to the GOP, while publicly standing against and advocating against the very platform of the Party they claim as their own.


Dependable, trustworthy national advocates for biblical, conservative principles are taking a stand and releasing statements in favor of natural marriage. Alliance Defending Freedom, the Heritage Foundation, Liberty Counsel and others are making their stand.

But will the Court rule in favor of the empathy and emotion being created around this issue as John Roberts' cousin seems to think? Or will they rule strictly on the merits of marriage and the Constitution?

They could rule that the Constitution does not address marriage and therefore refuse to rule, deferring to the states to decide what they want marriage to look like in each state.

And one question I've not heard asked is, "Does the Constitution render traditional marriage unconstitutional?"

We too are taking our stand, where ever we have influence. But in the end, this is a spiritual not a political battle.

Writing to the Christians in Rome Paul said, "Because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God...but became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened...professing to be wise, they became fools...who exchanged the truth of God for the lie...for this reason God gave them up to vile passions" (Romans Ch. 1).

One of those passions, homosexuality, is the behavior that is driving the effort to redefine marriage and family today.

Will the moral structure finally collapse should marriage and family be deconstructed in a country known for it's founding biblical principles? Will darkness replace light in what was once "a city on a hill?"

Today the Supreme Court will release audio and the transcribed text of the hearing on Prop 8. These should be available by 10 AM (PDT).

Tomorrow, the Court will release audio and transcribed text of the hearing on DOMA by 11 AM (PDT).

The information will be available at this government web site: supremecourt.gov/

The Court is expected to rule by the first of June.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be prayerful. Be Active. Be Informed. Be Blessed.

There are better days ahead.


  1. And one question I've not heard asked is, "Does the Constitution render traditional marriage unconstitutional?"
    Why would you? No one has ever said that men and women should not be able license the usage of the 100% secular civil contract (well others than those that think the state shouldn't have a marriage contract at all).

    Again, California already says that all citizens have a right to marry their husband or wife, all Prop 8 did was reserve one contract with the title 'Marriage' for some citizens. So the question you should be listening for is "Is it constitutional to make citizens with equal rights use two different civil contracts for the same thing?'

    The Christian principle answer to that question is a simple 'no.'

  2. "There are better days ahead."


    These days of open discrimination against gays will be but a bad memory.

  3. Gary, thank you for your steadfast leadership. I'm continuing to read your blog and listening to you on the radio (cell phone app) every day.Thank you for your "straight talk" we need that. Stand strong, be of good courage.

  4. Continue to tell it like it is, Gary. Be Blessed.

  5. In answer to that question, yes, it is constitutional, because homosexual unions are by definition not marriage.

    The Christian principle for marriage is that defined by God, one man and one woman for life.

    Craig in lacey

    1. "The dictionary says..." is not a legal argument. Good luck with that!


Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.