Posted on 06/29/2015 10:11:57 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
1-2-3-4-5. Five leftist lawyers, currently abusing their authority as Supreme Court Justices, unleashed their activism upon the U.S. Constitution Friday and created a non-existent right to same-sex marriage. The Fourteenth Amendment may provide equal protection under the law, but by applying it to expand the definition of marriage the Court has created a constitutional crisis in America. The First and Tenth Amendments, which respectively promise freedom of individual religion and award jurisdiction to the States of all powers not enumerated in the Constitution, have now been placed in direct conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Love Wins”? Not here it doesn’t, nor does anything but the will of five judicial despots, followed by the bullying mob rule of the Left and its Rainbow Mafia. Need proof?
In 2008, before the Saul Alinsky-ite Barack Obama and his Chicagoland gang occupied the White House and began “fundamentally transforming” our nation, there was debate, dissent and dialogue about all sorts of issues, including those issues fomented by the hard Left in order to label the response of the Christian Right as extremist.
In 2008, homosexual couples could enter into a legal, binding contract for shared property, power of attorney for making health care decisions, probate of wills, etc., and were, in most cases, receiving health care benefits from employers. These same homosexual couples were consummating their relationship in the privacy of their own domicile without harassment.
In 2008, Christians could speak their opinions and stand on their faith while understanding their voice was respected in the public square.
In 2015, however, those same Christians are in grave danger of losing legal standing because their beliefs are pitted against a brand new, heretofore undiscovered constitutional right. Tolerance is only for those who agree with the mob-rule Left.
What changed in seven years?
If you ask a moderate Republican, he or she might say, “Elections have consequences,” and shrug, since they never viewed this as meaningful anyway. If you ask the Bible-believing Democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan, they shudder at the exchange of timeless principles for sexual license. If you ask a libertarian, you might get the response that devout Christians are the “recalcitrant minority.” But if you ask someone who identifies as Christian first, American second, and is conservative politically, you’ll hear sorrow for a nation that worships the secular triune of me, myself and I rather than our Creator.
Millions of votes cast around the country to support the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman have now been nullified. How will this tyrannical disregard for the enumerated powers of the Constitution play out in the everyday lives of Christians?
In your place of worship, there’s now a government-approved theology that the God-rejecting Left expects to be preached. Whereas Bible-centric congregations stand on Holy Scripture, which does not include one single advocacy of sexual sin or perversion, the homosexual agenda demands that this view be rejected. One of the five black-robed tyrants, Justice Anthony Kennedy — considered the “swing vote” — laughingly attempted to reassure those whose lives revolve around their faith in the Judeo-Christian God by writing, “Those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.”
Get that? We can advocate our opposition, but there is little legal standing in such a weak word. As Chief Justice John Roberts put it, “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”
Let’s not forget the Christian bakers, florists, photographers and other business owners who have been financially ruined and litigiously challenged by the Rainbow Mafia. Already, Christians have been forced to either comply with the government-approved theology or face persecution.
What about the tax-exempt status of Christian organizations such as schools, faith-based charities, hospitals and other institutions with religious beliefs?
The Obama administration has already indicated this provision as a likely stick to enforce the mandatory bowing to the altar of government-sanctioned faith. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing conjured-up rights before the Supreme Court back in April, tipped their hand in response to an inquiry by Justice Samuel Alito. “It’s certainly going to be an issue,” Verrilli promised. “I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is going to be an issue.”
Chad Griffin, president of the Human (read: Homosexual) Rights Campaign, likewise said, “No question, the work is not done. … We still have a long ways to go.”
Cultural icons like Star Trek actor George Takei, who is homosexual, made the same veiled threat after the ruling. Some, he said, are “going to try to use the shroud of religious freedom” to disobey the Court’s decree. “I believe in religious freedom, and people who argue that are entitled to their freedom,” Takei said. “But” — yes, there was bound to be a “but” — “they do not have the freedom to impose their religious values on to others.”
Yet that’s exactly what the Court and the Rainbow Mafia are doing. The mob-rule Left, characteristically using its ends to justify any means, is wielding its political and legal prowess acquired over the last seven years to openly oppress Judeo-Christians.
Yet there are glimmers of hope that will endure.
Cultural and casual Christians, the ones who believe philanthropy and showing up for a holiday service is their only necessary spiritual response, will quickly self-identify and want to change the subject. Eventually, these fair-weather believers will either deepen their faith or more explicitly abandon it to avoid social stigma or name-calling.
But the greatest outcome of this conflict threatening the Liberty of the faithful and devout will be the growth of strength and community. Think of redwoods, trees that soar to heights of over 350 feet and can live thousands of years. These natural giants have roots of only five to 13 feet deep, but spread outward to 100 feet, interlocking with the roots of neighboring trees in the grove. Unseen bonds within these titans of the forest provide stability and support when the storms howl.
As Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, reminds us, “[T]he church often thrives when it is in sharp contrast to the cultures around it.”
And Congress isn’t idle. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which Lee writes “would prevent any agency from denying a federal tax exemption, grant, contract, accreditation, license, or certification to an individual or institution for acting on their religious belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.”
This battle has been won through activism and deception. The war, however, is not over.
Won’t take long for homo couples walk into Christian church’s all over the country HOPING the church will not marry them because they are gay.......It’s only a matter of time. Then, the attack on Christianity will really begin.
Mr. Takei - I invite you to come to the church I attend, but I do not force you to do so. You have the freedom to associate with whomever you choose. So do I. I choose to associate with people who believe Gods’ definition of marriage has not changed. Adam did not marry Bruce.
“they do not have the freedom to impose their religious values on to others.”
And their definition of that is refusing to marry them in church.
Takei said. “But they do not have the freedom to impose their religious values on to others.”
But it’s OK for homosexuals to impose their “values” on Christians.
That’s creepy.
Seven times seventy is 490.
It is well over 491 by now.
...unless you are a Christian.
Freedom of Speech...
...unless you have a differing Scientific opinion (according to the snake and tyrant Sheldon Whitehouse).
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but
then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
-William F. Buckley
And when they do accept the fact that there are other views, they seek to destroy anyone opposing them. Up to, and including, the Final Solution.*
*Communists had to kill between 100 million and 200 million because they disagreed with them, even though the Communists were clearly the ones who are wrong.
These is the same type of thinking in ALL Leftists....
....some just haven’t gotten to that point yet. They still need some prodding by “Community Activists” and politicians
I have been to a few Christian message boards and they seem to think this is nothing but paranoia from us. I don’t get it.
Still waiting for the outrage from black Christians.
Black Christians are a bit like Mary, and store things up in their hearts.
In 2008, homosexual couples could enter into a legal, binding contract for shared property, power of attorney for making health care decisions, probate of wills, etc., and were, in most cases, receiving health care benefits from employers
What they could not do was inherit their partner’s estate free from state inheritance tax, as spouses were allowed to do...and voila...
a lawsuit to legally wed a same sex partner...and the rest is, as they say, history...
Its the same pattern used by the anti-smoking lobby. They nibbled at individual rights until the got to the bone. Now NYC wants to make it a crime to smoke in your own home. That’s a huge leap from their own section on an airplane.
I’ll find a unicorn faster...
I don’t know how recently the requirement of a marriage license, issued by a governmental body, was established. I believe (and am open to corrections) that the requirement of a marriage license was instituted to established a legal contract between the man and woman involved.
A license assured there was a legal basis for requiring child and spousal support, the legal transfer of property (inheritance), and the state’s interest in not allowing incest, polygamy, or multiple marriages. The marriage license established a legal contract.
At one time(in some states) common law marriage was established when a man and woman lived together for a period of time (out of wedlock). This was also viewed as establishing a legal commitment to spouses and offspring.
Without these two constructs(marriage and common law marriage) men and women had no legal contractual requirement to their prodigy or each other. Once common law marriages were no longer required, men were free to establish relationships, with no legal responsibility, for their actions.
I believe I have seen a recent post on Free Republic that some states are considering not issuing marriage licenses in the future.
This would return us to the original purpose of marriage, the exchange of vows before God in a worship service. The state would remove itself from being entangled, and churches could restrict marriages in the church to members in good standing, who hold biblical views on marriage.
Of course this will not prevent some “churches” or “synagogues” that believe that the Bible is a suggestion, rather than the Word of God, to continue in their unbiblical beliefs and perform ceremonies between whomever or whatever they deem acceptable.
Gee, thanks, George. Big of you.
GOD IS STILL ON HIS THRONE!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.