Thursday, October 23, 2014

Marriage and Judicial Jihad?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
President Obama says the recent decision by the Supreme Court to "not rule" on same-sex marriage is the "hallmark of his tenure."

"In some ways," the president says, "the decision that was just handed down to not do anything about what states are doing on same-sex marriage may end up being as consequential---from my personal perspective, a positive sense---as anything that's been done."

While the president may see it as the "hallmark" of his tenure, others are suggesting that what has been done resembles judicial jihad.

Not only has the president now changed his mind in regard to state's rights on marriage, but has engineered a court decision that supports the campaign to redefine marriage through judicial activism.

What has the president done and how has he done it?

President Obama told New Yorker Magazine, a progressive left publication, "Because I think it really signals that although the Court was not quite ready---it didn't have sufficient votes to follow 'Loving v. Virginia' (1967 decision ruling that states could no longer ban racial intermarriage) and go ahead and indicate an equal protection right across the board---it was a consequential and powerful signal of the changes that have taken place in society and the law is having to catch up," he says.

Although the president has repeatedly told the public he thinks marriage should be left to the states, he now tells the New Yorker that he believes the Constitution "requires" that " all states allow same-sex marriage."

This is very different than what he was telling ABC News in May, 2012 when he first announced he had changed his beliefs on marriage and now supported redefining marriage.

He said although he had changed his beliefs on marriage, it was "not a federal issue."

The New Yorker highlights how the president has brought about what he sees as "consequential" and "powerful" progress to redefine marriage.

In the interview he said his administration had worked hard at diversifying the federal bench to include more minorities and homosexuals.

"I think there are some particular groups that historically have been underrepresented---like Latinos and Asian Americans---that represent a larger and larger portion of the population. And so for them to be able to see folks in robes that look like them is going to be important," he said.

Then he got to the real point of it all.

"When I came into office," he bragged, "I think there was only one openly gay judge who had been appointed. We've appointed ten."

He claims his appointments are simply following the shifts in our society. Others strongly disagree, saying his actions are artificially creating the shifts in society.

Social engineering. Some say, judicial jihad.

Tony Perkins is one of many who has raised his voice on the matter.

He says, "Unfortunately, by failing to take up these marriage cases, the High Court will allow rogue lower court judges who have ignored history and true legal precedent to silence the elected representatives of the people and the voice of the people themselves by overturning state provisions on marriage."

"Even more alarming," Perkins says, "lower court judges are undermining our form of government and the rights and freedoms of citizens to govern them selves. 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 and respect of law."

Two very differing views, both consequential---views that differ on the Constitution, the role of the people, and even the model of marriage.

Supreme Court Justice Atonin Scalia told the State Bar of Georgia convention that "The Constitution is not a living organism."

He said, "Originalism and trying to figure out precisely what the ratified document means is the only option, otherwise you're just telling judges to govern."

He also said he doesn't think trying to have a court that is representative of the population is necessary---"as far as I'm concerned, you can find bad judges in every region of the country...and good ones as well."

Larry Arn, President of Hillsdale College has given an outstanding lecture on "The Founder's Constitution and The Challenge of Progressivism". I have linked the summary.

Arn says, "For Progressives, the forward march of science and an ever-improving human nature have disproved" the founding principles, "which in turn requires that the government instituted by the Founders be discarded and replaced."

He says, "Unless the American people---the sovereign rulers of the United States of America---rededicate themselves to the principles of limited government constitutionalism and halt the growth of bureaucratic despotism, we risk losing the last vestiges of constitutional government."

The driving Progressive idea is that true equality and the notion of unchanging natural rights are out dated and irrelevant.

Abraham Lincoln said, "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Informed. Be Pro-Active. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.