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.

 

 

United States Supreme Court Redefines Marriage

Today is June 26, 2015.  Another one of those dates that will stick out in Americans' minds for the rest of time.  Our nation's Supreme Court issued its opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, the "gay marriage" case that has now federalized the right of same sex couples to marry.  Very soon, we'll have other mixes of marriage, a man with 5 wives, two husbands and two wives, etc.  but that is another post for another time.

This is a very, very sad day.  Sad for personal reasons and sad for corporate reasons.  As a Christian who tries to follow God and obey the Bible, I cannot help but grieve for my nation.  My nation has defied the Lord and defiled His Word.  Marriage is not a right of the state.  It is sanctioned by God.  And in yet another realm, America has taken an official stand of opposing God.  That is a stance it will lose.  Abraham Lincoln bemoaned in 1863 that "we have forgotten God."  We have not forgotten Him, though.  We are actively warring against Him.  How foolish we are.

The Court was almost predictable with its 5-4 decision.  Anthony Kennedy was indeed the "swing" vote, siding with the liberal Stephen Breyer and the radical feminist Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Obama appointees Kagan and Sotomayer.  The four conservatives, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each wrote their own dissenting opinions.  Something that is virtually unheard of.

The Court didn't really use the Constitution to justify its decision.  To be sure, they used the 14th Amendment's equal protection, due process clause, as the "legal" basis of their imperial edict.  But everyone on the Right and the Left knows exactly that these judges tinkered and gerrymandered our laws to fit a philosophical persuasion.

The Minority was scathing in their response.  Each dissenting judge took the unique step of issuing their own opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:

…this Court is not a legislature.   Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.  Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be…Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not.

Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage.  Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration.  But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening…The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment.  The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.

Antonin Scalia wrote:

I join the Chief Justice’s opinion in full.  I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy...

This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Clarence Thomas bemoaned the tinkering of "due process" to fit whatever judges want it to fit, then said:

By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority.

 And Samuel Alito gave a prophetic warning to the overwhelming number of Americans who do not share this viewpoint of marriage:

I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

Chief Justice John Roberts had asked somewhere in his dissenting opinion, "just who do we think we are?"  We think we are better than God.  We think we are higher than the Constitution.  We are a country bent on doing our own thing, whatever that takes.

 

 

 

Remembering Roe v. Wade

We remember it well.  The date is etched in every pro-life person's mind.  We know it as well as December 7, 1941 or 9/11.  January 22, 1973.  The day the Supreme Court of the United States offered its Roe v Wade decision and foisted upon America, abortion on demand.  They ignored history.  They ignored science.  They ignored morality.  And they ignored constitutional continuity.  They invented a new right.  The right to privacy.

Justice Byron White, one of two dissenting justices (William Rehnquist was the other) stated it well in his dissenting opinion:
"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the court's judgment. The court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes."

Now, forty two years later, we have experienced over 57,000,000 deaths of unborn children as well as countless deaths of pregnant mothers at the hands of a greedy, profit-driven, money making abortion industry.  The mental anguish of women (and men) exploited by abortion and the subsequent culture of violence created by Roe is another telling hallmark of this heinous case.

Roe v. Wade made it legal to destroy a developing baby within the womb of its mother during all 9 months of pregnancy.  By sanctioning the legal killing of innocent babies, the Supreme Court also slaughtered the noble dignity of a once great nation. 

In many ways, we have accomplished much.  In my own state of Missouri, I remember occasionally picketing the abortion provider Planned Parenthood near 46th & Troost in Kansas City.  It no longer provides abortions.  Neither does Columbia; nor does Springfield.  Planned Parenthood of St. Louis if the only abortion provider in Missouri.  Just one clinic.  But one clinic too many.

Abortion is still a vibrant and functioning part of the American culture.  While most abortionists prefer to keep their trade rather private, there is still little shame on the part of many in advancing this barbarism.  The President didn't bat much of an eye in his State of Union speech on Tuesday with his smoke and mirror gobbledygook.


We still may not agree on a woman's right to choose, but surely we can agree it's a good thing that teen pregnancies and abortions are nearing all-time lows, and that every woman should have access to the health care she needs.


By "the healthcare she needs" the President means the Obamacare fiasco forcing religious entities as well as private citizens to pay for women's abortions.  And no, that is not a good thing.  It is not good for the developing baby or even the mental and physical health of the mother; it is not a good thing for person's of pro-life conscience, and it is not a good thing for our nation.

The Republican party, once the unashamed advocate for the unborn, abandoned this week, legislation that would have protected babies in the fifth to ninth months of development from the pain of an abortion.

So let us remember today.  Let us remember the decision that ended dignity in America.

Upheld! Obamacare Will Undermine Freedom

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality of what is commonly known as "Obamacare". It wasn't all that surprising.

The surprise came in that the supposed "swing vote" on the Court, that of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who sometimes sides with the liberal faction of Ginsberg and Breyer, and the new Obama appointees of Sotomayor and Kagan and sometimes with the conservative block of Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, favored repeal. Why then was the vote not 5-4 for REPEAL?

Shocker of shockers, Chief Justice John Roberts, the stalwart conservative appointed by then President Bush, cast his view in favor of constitutionality.

This, of course, demolishes one of conservativism's, especially Christian-right conservativism, greatest planks for political involvement--elect Republicans, if for no other reason than getting good judges nominated. It is often why key leaders of the Christian-right will endorse candidates they perceive have the "electability" factor over other candidates who hold viewpoints closer to their own--like Gary Bauer did in 2008 when he endorsed John McCain over Mike Huckabee. We needed the presidency to get the judicial appointments, and John McCain supposedly had a better chance of winning the presidency.

Now I will grant that winning the presidency in 2008 would have GREATLY increased the probability of a different outcome in this case. Sotomayor and Kagan would not be sitting on the bench.

I know Roberts wasn't the only vote, but for all practical purposes, the Chief Justice gave us Obamacare.

Christian conservatives often take refuge in false securities, especially when it comes to the political spheres. So when a John Roberts comes along and gets confirmed to the high court, we breathe a sigh of relief. And then comes Obamacare; well, technically National Federation of Independent Business et al. v Sebelius, Secretary Health and Human Services et al. are our hopes are shattered.

This underscores for us, that we are, both ultimately and essentially, people of faith. By that I mean our hope and trust is in the Lord. Yes, we participate in the political process, but with a knowledge that the process may very well fail to achieve the thing we desire--a just society. Even now, while we watch our freedoms disentegrate before our very eyes, we know that God is working and moving in our midst.

God is even now accomplishing His purposes through this troubling vote. The question of the hour will not be addressed by the legions of conservative journalists, pundits, radio talk show hosts and cable news programs. It will be asked quietly and revently in the hearts and minds of God's people. What is God doing with the United States of America?