In the wake of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States, our nation has seemingly lost its collective mind. The liberals are unceasing in suddenly heralding the decision as a triumph of civil rights, a mantra that hasn’t been sounded in a long time.
I wanted to make a couple of other points I mentioned in passing in a previous blog post.
First, the reason that such a decision was inevitable is because we have lost our God consciousness in this country. There is no absolute authority. The Bible, and its moral code, is not revered.
I quoted favorably yesterday from the Court’s dissenting justices. They rightly understood and eloquently wrote of the unconstitutionality to the majority’s decision. They were acutely aware of the hideousness of this decision’s judicial overreach. But it was very disappointing to hear their circumvention of the issue of same-sex marriage.
The lone exception was perhaps Justice Samuel Alito. In Part II of his dissent, he did a commendable job of attacking the issue of same-sex marriage and gave a thoughtful defense of traditional marriage. But the bulk of his opinion was also on the issue
Chief Justice John Roberts went out of his way to be sure everyone understood he was not objecting to same-sex marriage per se by writing: “Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal…”
He then went on to state “Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us” and argues that “the people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples” and unequivocally and forcefully states what his dissent is not about. “It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples.”
And just why is it not about such? When our founders spoke of the laws of nature and of nature’s God (Declaration of Independence) they were advocating a Judeo-Christian ethic, which advances one-man/one-woman marriage.
Justice Antonin Scalia, perhaps the court’s most vociferous conservative firebrand, scathingly denounced the tyranny of the majority’s decision calling it a “threat to American democracy”, but was very surprising in his aloofness on the subject of traditional marriage: “The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes…” Then he callously reiterated “it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage.”
Justice Clarence Thomas was a bit more benign, but still invoked this same objection that same-sex marriage wasn’t the problem, it was how it was being achieved. He spoke of the “distortion of our Constitution” that “inverts the relationship between individual and the state in our Republic.”
So 3 of our 4 conservative judges could, so it seems, care little of what marriage is in our beloved nation. It was the means they vilified, not the end. And for me, this is a telling example of why a liberal majority could do what it did in the Obergefell decision. If the conservatives have such little fear of God or Biblical consciousness, then what else could we expect from the liberals?
The Supreme Court of Texas had no problem talking freely of God and Biblical morality in the following case of Grisby v. Ried. Granted, it was a judicial opinion rendered a century ago. Yet, it is a great example of how America has lost its Biblical footing.
Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband. When God created the first pair, He gave the command: "Multiply and replenish (people) the earth," which was enjoined upon their expulsion from the garden. When Noah was selected for salvation from the flood, he and his wife and his three sons and their wives were placed in the Ark, and when the flood waters had subsided and the families came forth, it was Noah and his wife and each son and his wife, and God repeated to them the command: "Multiply." All of the duties and obligations that have existed at any time between husband and wife existed between those husbands and wives before civil government was formed. The truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage; marriage by cohabitation, not by contract, which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary to settle differences in matters of private interest, to protect the weak and to conserve the moral forces of society, to the support of religion and free government. In what respect does the contract of marriage of B and C contribute to their happiness? How does that marriage benefit society? It will contribute nothing to sustaining the dignity of the State, nor add to its citizenship. Such a contract, if it be regarded as such, is worse than a nudum pactum, for it is without consideration or obligation to or from either party. Such life is in defiance of the commands of God, and in disregard of every obligation to society and State. Such a transaction has but one element of a contract, mutual consent to do nothing for themselves, their country, or their God. The abstract theory has had little influence in the determination of causes except to confuse the judicial mind. Contract marriages exist when the parties, for some pecuniary or social advantages, have desecrated the sacred status by their union, and such marriages often furnish business to the divorce courts and scandals to society.We need an awareness of God and an understanding of sin. Yesterday’s decision was more egregious in that it defied God rather than circumventing the right of American’s to govern themselves and vote on a definition of marriage. Yes we need judges like those of the 1913 Texas Supreme Court who understood that marriage is a sacred institution designed by God.
We have become preoccupied with the marriage of homosexuals and not the practice of homosexuals. The down side is that we, for the most part, have believed that as long as we do not codify this sinful choice into our marriage laws, we have done well. We have not. For far too long, homosexuality has been celebrated in America. And homosexuality is overshadowed by the sin of abortion, an immorality that gets so very little attention these days.
We need revival.