Monday, June 29, 2015

Supreme Court--Weighed, Found Wanting

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Friday, a bare minimum majority (5-4) of the US Supreme Court said they, rather than God, the American people and human history know best what marriage should be.

Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissent with the majority, said the Court "stole the issue from the people" and that the decision was based on homosexual activism "not the Constitution."

Justice Scalia in dissent said, "The opinion is couched in a style that is pretentious as its content is egotistic."

Justice Clarence Thomas and Scalia said they, in their dissent, wanted to call attention to the Court's threat to American Democracy."

In the tradition of infamous Old Testament King Belshazzer, the highest Court in our land has been weighed in the balances and found wanting by God, the American people and our Constitution.

Now, the candidates who would be president must be weighed as to how they view marriage and biblical morality.

Is the Church and her response to this moral collapse also being weighed in the balances?

How should we respond? Two actions you can take today.

The 4 Justices who stood for the Constitution and natural marriage were both candid and direct in their dissent.

Chief Justice Roberts further wrote in dissent, "If not having the right to marry 'serves to disrespect and subordinate' gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn't the same 'imposition of this disability'...serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?"

Those in support of polygamous and plural or polyamorous "marriage" are already asking why this law does not give them the same rights as homosexuals.

Justice Scalia wrote that the majority ruling represents a "judicial Putsch." He said democracy was working through a public debate until the Supreme Court stopped it: "But the Court ends this debate in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law."

He called out the majority for "acting like activists, not judges." He also said although the majority used the 14th Amendment to "discover" this new "right," they "used it in a way that was never intended by its writers."

Justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissent that the majority invoked a definition of liberty that the Constitution's framers "would not have recognized."

He wrote, the Constitution has been used "to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect."

Thomas also warned that the Court's "inversion of the original meaning of liberty will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty."

Justice Thomas says, "This decision will threaten religious liberty by creating an unavoidable collision between the interests of same-sex couples and some religious organizations."

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in dissent, "Today's decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court's abuse of its authority have failed."

He said, "By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas."

Alito said, "There is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage and therefore the Court should not take on the topic."

He said,  "No one---including social scientists, philosophers, and historians---can predict with any certainty what the long term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be."

Point well taken. However, although social scientists may not be able to predict the consequences of this decision, biblical Christians can.

God's Word is very clear as to the consequences of sin, including this sin.

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, (5) quotes both Confucius and Cicero.

Cicero, a Roman citizen and leader, was an eye witness to the fall of the Roman Empire. I have read his works. They are a detailed account of where these kinds of national decisions lead.

In the opinion of many, America is beginning to parallel the path of Rome.

How will the candidates for the presidency respond to this judicial fiasco?

Some, but not all, have weighed in on the Supreme Court ruling on marriage.

This is a link to a Fox News report on the candidates comments.

The most forceful statement came from Mike Huckabee.

He said, "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch."

He said, "We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."

How will the Christian Church respond to this disaster?

Over the weekend I read several statements to pastors and leaders of several different evangelical denominations. Some were tepid, at best, with an emphasis on loving and accepting the "law of the land" while strongly criticizing those Christians who were expressing too much outrage toward the Court's decision. Some a bit more candid, and thankfully, some reflecting the sentiments of Mike Huckabee.

Phyllis Schafly, conservative leader, lawyer and founder of Eagle Forum, warned that anyone who thinks the Supreme Court has settled the issue of "gay marriage" that it's "not the end. It's the beginning."

Schafly is credited with defeating the Equal Rights Amendment some years ago.

Franklin Graham, who may not speak for all Christian churches, certainly represents the beliefs of tens of millions of evangelical and conservative Catholics in America.

Franklin said this on Facebook: "The President is leading this nation on a sinful path course, and God will judge him and us as a nation if we don't repent."

A couple of things you can do today.

  • Pray
  • Be Informed
  • Take Action

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF ) is a Christian law firm. They have prepared a 44 page legal guide for churches, Christian schools and Christian ministries titled, "Protecting Your Ministry From Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity Lawsuits." I have linked the guide. Please see that your pastor and other church leaders in your area have this guide.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful.