Monday, October 06, 2014

Supreme Court--Wrong on Marriage and Religious Freedom

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

By declining to review appeals on the definition of marriage in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin, the US Supreme Court dealt a blow to natural marriage and religious freedom yesterday.

Some of the states began issuing "marriage" licenses within hours of the Court's decision.

By not reviewing or ruling, the Court is, in effect, undermining good laws passed by the vote of the people, that reflect the truth about marriage, in favor of undermining natural marriage, family and religious freedom.

The New York Times describes the Court's action as creating an "inevitability" for national same-sex "marriage."

Christian leaders are calling it an all out attack on natural marriage, the rule of law and religious freedom--- a move designed to force conservatives and tens of millions of people of biblical faith to not only tolerate, but celebrate a behavior God condemns.

Some believe the judicial fiat against marriage and religious freedom will backfire.


Ben Shapiro said yesterday afternoon the Supreme Court has essentially greenlit same-sex "marriage" across the nation "encouraging low-level courts to continue knocking down traditional marriage..."

Shapiro says the Supreme Court will now wait until they have determined that a "trend-line" has been established by the "evolution" of marriage, then they will declare it the law of the land and that the new standard or "norm" must be "enshrined into law."

That was the prevailing logic in the Lawrence v. Texas case (2003) in which the Court waited 17 years to overrule Bowers v. Hardwick which legalizes sodomy, saying, "anal penetration was a hard fought constitutional right."

The Court in that case said Bowers no longer applied because of "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex."

Justice Scalia wrote at the time that the Court's statement was a false statement---apparently it didn't matter to the Court.

Scalia said it was a false statement because, "'The State'," he explained, still regulates "prostitution, adult incest, adultery, obscenity and child pornography."

It also prohibits close blood relatives from marriage.

He also said at the time, "Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because some states choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain behavior."

Shapiro says the beauty of the Supreme Court doctrine is "they don't have to do the judicial dirty work anymore. They can rely on lower-courts to violate the Constitution, then declare the Constitution magically changed because of an 'emerging' consensus on violating the Constitution."

"And the people have no recourse," he rightly points out.

He says we the people "cannot pass laws that for two and a half centuries have been fully constitutional. They cannot fight state attorneys general who betray their voters. They must sit by as the courts play legal games while awaiting the great Obama-esque 'evolution'---an evolution that is almost entirely top-down, and that will then be dictated to us by our betters."

The Supreme Court actually set the predicate to redefine marriage in its ruling on United States v. Windsor in which Justice Scalia called out the Court, summarizing that the Court "was declaring anyone opposed to same sex marriage an enemy of human decency."

Indeed it did.

So where do we go from here? What's next?

The New York Times reported yesterday afternoon, "In a move that may signal the inevitability of a national right to same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court on Monday let stand appeals court rulings allowing such unions in five states."

Most of the news media is pushing the narrative that redefining marriage in America is now "inevitable" so those opposed for whatever reasons will need to get over it and move on.

Some religious leaders are agreeing, often using Bible verses to affirm their anti-biblical positions on homosexual behavior. Or, simply telling people of faith to let it go and love the people and hate the sin, and don't address it.

But some within the Christian community are not in agreement with the notion of accepting the new "normal," winking at God's Word concerning the matter and not mentioning it again.

Tony Perkins, with Family Research, said yesterday, "Lower court judges are undermining our form of government and the rights and freedoms of citizens to govern themselves. This judicially led effort to force same-sex 'marriage' on people will have negative consequences for our Republic, not only as it relates to natural marriage, but also undermining the rule of and respect of the law."

Matt Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said, "This is a a total dereliction of duty. The Supreme Court abandoned its duty to take up or at least hold these marriage cases."

He says, "Everyone will be affected by same-sex marriage because it is an intolerant agenda that will collide with with religious freedom."

Perkins believes time is on the side of biblical values and those who hold them, and not on the side of those who want to redefine marriage.

I agree.

Perkins says, "As more states are forced to redefine marriage, contrary to nature and directly in conflict with the will of millions, more Americans will see and experience attacks on their religious freedom. Parents will find a wedge being driven between them and their children as school curriculum is changed to contradict the morals parents are teaching their children. As more and more people lose their lively hood because they refuse to not just tolerate but celebrate same-sex marriage, Americans will see the true goal, which is for activists to use the Court to impose a redefinition of natural marriage on the entire nation."

He and others are calling on Congress to move forward with the "State Marriage Defense Act," which would ensure that the federal government in its definition of marriage respects the duly enacted marriage laws of the states.

This is perhaps the most blatant illustration of secular progressivism and its war on traditional values.

The question all biblical Christians must ask themselves is whether the culture shapes the Bible, or the Bible shapes the culture.

And if it is the latter, and it is, then it's time pastors and Christians began speaking biblical truth to our culture, whatever the cost.

Be Courageous. Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Pro-Active. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed. Be Free.


10 comments:

  1. Unconstitutional judges. They made a huge mistake. They've done a lot of damage. There's a lot of restoration work to be done. These judges should have been voted out by congress or something.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's see now.. How does what these judges have done, work to....

    form a more perfect union? (why must they downgrade? Why not upgrade?)

    establish justice? (nothing just about ordaining abominable sin, all the legal troubles their way does cause)

    insure domestic tranquility? (trying to divide a nation, is that it?, causing all sorts of legal troubles and oppression by illegitimate law. No that's not what will make good people happy. Sin works to make everyone miserable, robs people of their peace, which comes from God.)

    promote general welfare? (might cause many to be discouraged and go on welfare, I suppose)

    secure the blessings? (Let's read our Bibles)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unconstitutional as all get out. Where's by bug-out bag?

    ReplyDelete
  4. As much as I fear and hate ISIL, one young recruit said he was leaving the United States because it was fast becoming an immoral land. On that point, he was right. How unfortunate that it came from the mouth of an ISIL recruit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow! So be bugged out but to the wrong deal. I suppose the thinking was along the lines of "Since America is so wrong, maybe whoever is an enemy of it, maybe isn't so bad."

      Delete
  5. I would have to say that the decision from the Supreme Court was both a victory and setback at the same time. It is not the Federal Government's right or responsibility to make a decision regarding marriage, per the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Supreme Court was correct in their decision to not hear any cases regarding marriage - this is a State issue.

    Unfortunately, their decision to leave in tact lower Federal Court rulings that over-turned the will of the people in many states was a defeat (for now). This again takes the will of the people and places into one individual making decisions for the majority against their will.

    The beautiful hidden silver lining in this is if the State legislatures and Governors in each state have enough courage (as they do, usually, here in Oklahoma) they can enforce the rule of law as the people have decided, in spite of what the Federal government might want to say.

    This has been and always will be a State issue - not a Federal issue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Has anyone taken note that in many pictures of 'same sex' marriage, one of the participants is dressed as a man (mostly lesbian ceremonies). Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think I wanna know.

      Delete
  7. Since this matter of the definition of marriage is a grave concern for all the states equally, regardless of what a few might do, the Supreme court has a responsibility to step in on this and make a good ruling. It should outlaw same sex marriage because of it's harmful effects upon all the people of the United States. It's the only responsible and constitutional thing to do in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To go along with this kind of fundamental changing of America, isn't a good thing. Why should it go as if to dash itself upon the rocks?

    ReplyDelete

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