Monday, February 25, 2013

President Urges Supreme Court To Redefine Marriage

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

Late Friday afternoon, as offices were closing and workers were heading home for the weekend, President Obama's White House delivered a brief to the Supreme Court.

The message?

His brief is formally urging the Court to declare unconstitutional the portion of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) law that bars recognition of same-sex marriages by the government for income tax purposes, federal employee benefits, immigration and a number of other programs.

The President is also including so-called same-sex "marriage" in his immigration reform proposals.

Will he also insert himself into the California Proposition 8 matter also scheduled to come before the Supreme Court beginning March 26?

Does the President have more in mind than just these specific cases?

Is he preparing to make an all out push to redefine marriage nationally, even though he has repeatedly said he believes it is a matter for individual states to decide?

There are now some Republican "conservatives" who are saying they think there is a case to be made for "conservatives" to support same-sex "marriage."

But first, Tim Eyman, Mike Fagan and Jack Fagen have unleashed the wrath of the Seattle Times, the Spokesman Review and other papers across the state. GOP Chairman Kirby Wilbur agrees with the papers and is calling on Eyman to apologize.

This past week, Tim Eyman sent out an email to his friends and supporters, giving them an update and encouraging them to continue their financial support to his political action committee, "Voters Want More Choices."

The email indicated, as they all do, it was from Eyman, Mike Fagan who also serves on the Spokane City Council, and his father, Jack Fagan---all of whom are involved with the PAC.

As most know, they have been very successful in resisting and reversing tax increases over the past number of years. While this has not endeared them to liberal progressives, their work is generally appreciated by conservatives.

At issue are these words which Tim included in his email:
"Candidate Inslee repeatedly promised to veto any tax increase. He said no way to higher transportation taxes in 2013. Inslee said he'd grow jobs to generate more tax revenue. What a lying whore he turned out to be. In recent weeks, he's made it clear he'll sign any tax increase the Legislature unilaterally imposes."
So Tim, how do you really feel?

State GOP Chair Kirby Wilbur says Tim shouldn't have said that. "There is no question that's beyond the pale and is uncalled for, and I would condemn such a thing."

He said, "You may say, 'I disagree,' or 'he lied' and point that out. But you don't call him a 'lying whore'. He should apologize, no question."

Tim Eyman says he will not apologize.

Oh, my.

President Obama is specifically targeting Section 3 of DOMA.

His brief reads, "The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important benefits that are available to legally married opposite sex couples."

The brief says, "Gay and lesbian people are a minority group with limited political power. Although some of the harshest and most overt forms of discrimination against gay and lesbian people have receded, that progress has hardly been uniform, and has in significant respects been the result of judicial enforcement of the Constitution, not political action."

When President Obama initially refused, as President, to defend DOMA, a federal law, the Republican led House of Representatives promised to defend it, which they have and are doing.

They too have filed a brief with the Supreme Court, which says in part, "Gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best connected, best funded, and best organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time that virtually any other group in American history."

This federal case will come before the Supreme Court in the next few months.

Is President Obama posturing himself to attempt to get a federal constitutional "right" to homosexual "marriage?"

I firmly believe he is.

It would also be helpful to his agenda to try to influence California's Proposition 8 case which comes before the Supreme Court March 26.

If he is trying to get a federal homosexual "marriage" law, and I believe he is, he will likely jump on this case as well. He has until Thursday of this week (Feb. 28) to file that brief. We'll see.

However, even if he does not file a brief, it is pretty certain he is taking his best shot at redefining marriage nationally.

You will recall that just over a year ago he was saying he believed the marriage issue was a matter for each state to decide. You will also recall that until about a year ago he also said he believed marriage was between one man and one woman.

Then he evolved.

Relativism is a wonderful tool for secular progressives who look to the political winds for their core beliefs.

There is nothing tentative about what he is doing. He has his petal to the metal. He is committed to redefining marriage as he "remakes" America.

In my opinion, the best thing the Supreme Court could do would be to stay out of the marriage issue. I personally believe this issue should be decided by the American people, not the courts.

Do you know which state has the highest number of homosexuals? I have linked a recent Gallup Poll that shows the percentage of homosexuals in each state. 

Republican Jon Huntsman, a Mormon and a Republican presidential candidate in 2012, has also apparently "evolved." He said over the weekend that he now supports same-sex "marriage" and thinks there is a case to be made that you can be a conservative and support same-sex "marriage."

I don't think that's possible. And here's why.

Jennifer Thieme has written an excellent article on this subject. I will summarize some of her thoughts with my own.

First, and foremost I do not believe anyone who claims the Bible as the Word of God and His revelation can honestly believe that homosexual behavior is acceptable.

Secondly, as a public policy issue, homosexual "marriage" does not stand alone nor is it a conservative issue because it requires the natural family to be dismantled at the level of public policy.

True conservatives support limited government and they understand that there are other institutions which serve to limit government power. Two of these institutions are the natural family and religion.

Same sex "marriage," which as a policy removes the gender requirement for marriage, is a great vehicle for those who wish to increase the scope and power of government as it forces these other institutions to diminish.

In order to accommodate homosexual couples into the institution of marriage, all gendered words are removed from the law, words such as bride, groom, husband, wife, mother, father, etc. These are replaced with gender neutral words like partner, party, applicant, and parent.

This change means that marriage, as a public policy for every couple and family, becomes genderless. Individuals have gender, of course, but to accommodate homosexual couples, there is no "gay marriage" as a public policy. A policy of accommodating gay couples into the institution of marriage might look like "bride and groom" for traditional couples, with the additional "bride and bride" or "groom and groom" for homosexual couples, but that's not what happens. It's "partner 1 and partner 2" or "party A and party B" or "applicant A and applicant B" as the policy---and it applies to all couples, not just homosexual ones.

There is actually no "gay marriage" as a policy under genderless marriage---there is also no traditional marriage.

I have been asked more times than I can count by reporters and talk show hosts, "How will marriage equality hurt your marriage?"

The answer? Traditional marriage as public policy will cease to exist.

One question that must be asked. What will society look like after a generation or so without traditional marriage as a distinct policy?

There is no way a biblical Christian can support the abolition of traditional marriage. Nor can a true conservative.

May God help us.