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.
