Posted on 06/26/2015 10:26:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court has ruled 5–4 that the Constitution guarantees a right to gay marriage. Will this decision be the Brown v. Board of Education of our times or this generation’s Roe v. Wade? The difference, of course, is that Brown v. Board definitively established a magnificent new public morality that racism is wrong. The Supreme Court’s decision to strip human life in the womb of all legal protections, by contrast, set in motion a 50-year struggle that has yet to end.
Which will it be? A great deal depends on how the men and women who want to be the GOP nominee for president respond in the next week.
I say this not because I believe politics is everything: But politics for conservatives has been the means by which we have prevented the Left from redefining our views as outside the mainstream. That is why the Left, recognizing the importance of shutting down any political vehicle for our voices, has focused on getting corporations and donors to pressure conservatives to back off, back down, and, above all, shut up.
EDITORIAL: The Constitution Is Silent on Same-Sex Marriage
Most recently, they have succeeded, for example, in getting for governor Rick Perry to shut up. At the recent Faith and Freedom Coalition conference, Perry “said nothing in his own speech about the upcoming landmark ruling on same-sex marriage, and instead focused primarily on matters unrelated to religion,” according to Rebecca Berg in RealClearPolitics. Perry downplayed the idea of calling for overturning the Court decision, reasoning: “My record on traditional marriage is very clear. . . . I think a more appropriate focus for those of us that are running for the presidency of the United States is to remind people that the next president of the United States could appoint up to three people on the Supreme Court.”
People like Kennedy and Roberts, both GOP appointees?
Jennifer Rubin, whose political instincts are almost always wrong, chimed in her two cents’ worth of praise, urging Scott Walker to emulate Perry, not Huckabee, in just walking on the quiet side: “Walker would be wise to follow Perry’s approach: Don’t drop his views, but do avoid outlandish and off-putting rhetoric; emphasize what his focus will be, not what a fringe of the party wants to fixate on; embrace globalism and smart economic policy; and be respectful of the courts and of fellow Americans.”
RELATED: How the Redefinition of Marriage Serves Leviathan
This is the conventional wisdom, a conventional wisdom that the latest WSJ/NBC poll calls into deep question. The key question in this poll is not who is on top — the field is splintered, there is no frontrunner, and too many candidates are within the margin of error of each other to make meaningful predictions. But the poll asked a key question: Could you imagine voting for this candidate? That question, as consultant and American Principles Project president Frank Cannon pointed out to me, gives you a sense of which candidates are building a potential upside, who have the most potential voters to appeal to.
And the latest poll showed two remarkable things: a strong upsurge from Huckabee in the last few months, from 52 percent saying they would possibly vote for him to 65 percent. (Scott Walker, by contrast, barely inched up from 53 percent to 57 percent of voters).
Perry, I think, has made a big mistake: He has revealed himself to be a creature of the corporate and donor class, muting his defense of what many Americans see as the premier issue of our times.
Even more remarkably, Jeb Bush transformed himself from the candidate Republicans like to hate back into major contender, surging from 49 percent of the electorate saying they could see themselves voting for Jeb up to 75 percent (tying Rubio, who is at 74 percent). He did this even while holding steady in favor of immigration reform and Common Core, in part by steadily and sturdily and, yes, reasonably explaining his commitments to life and religious liberty, without backing down from marriage.
Perry, I think, has made a big mistake: He has revealed himself to be a creature of the corporate and donor class, muting his defense of what many Americans see as the premier issue of our times, along with the stagnant economy and the threats from terrorism: the ongoing redefinition of classic Christianity as the moral, legal, and cultural equivalent of racism in the public square.
Last week, ThePulse2016.com (which I help edit) asked 29 prominent social-conservative leaders a key question: Assuming the Supreme Court imposes gay marriage on all 50 states, how do you want GOP presidential candidates to respond? (The Social Conservative Insider Poll consists of Gary Bauer, Kim Bengard, Frank Cannon, Clint Cline, Steve Deace, Chuck Donovan, Erick Erickson, Michael Farris, Maggie Gallagher, Kathryn Lopez, Shannon McGinley, Eric Metaxas, Gaston Mooney, Frank Schubert, Alan Sears, Todd Starnes, Bob Vanderplaats, Bill Witchterman, Becky Norton-Dunlop, Penny Nance, Marjorie Dannenfelser, Tony Perkins, Ellen Barrosse, James Robison, Father Frank Pavone, James Dobson, David Barton, Marvin Olasky, and Charmaine Yoest.)
EDITORIAL: To Preserve Marriage and Democracy
Many said they want a champion who will do everything, along the lines of the pledge drafted by the National Organization for Marriage. But when asked to choose between a constitutional amendment (which likely will not pass) or protective legislation like the First Amendment Defense Act, which would protect the c3 status of Christian schools and nonprofits, these leaders said, by a 3–1 margin, that we need practical protection and we need it now.
Several mentioned the possibility, during the next president’s first few days in office, of an executive order preventing government discrimination against traditional believers, a measure that would apply to contracts, employment, and the disbursal of government benefits.
In a way, this is an opportunity for Perry and Walker if they want to reverse the growing impression among conservatives that when the heat is on they will stand down, back off, and submit.
Here is what I think the man or woman who wants to be president cannot say: any version of “the Court has ruled, it’s time to move on.”
Here is what I want to hear:
“Today the Supreme Court ruled against our history and traditions that marriage must change its timeless and time-honored meaning in response to the latest liberal pressures. The Supreme Court is not God, and it is not the final word in our American Constitutional system: The Court, like all human things, sometimes get things wrong. It was wrong about slavery with Dred Scott. It was wrong about racism and segregation with Plessy v. Ferguson. It was wrong about the value of every human life with Roe v. Wade. And today it has gotten marriage wrong.
“For a reason, marriage across time and history has been the union of husband and wife: These are the unions we all depend on to make new life, and to connect our babies with the love of their mom and dad. You can rewrite the law, but you cannot rewrite human nature, or the laws of nature and of nature’s God.
“This Court’s decision does not end the discussion of the dangers of radical judicial power.
“Today, I pledge that, if I am elected president, the move to redefine as discrimination Christianity and traditional beliefs on marriage — to redefine them as the equivalent of racism — ends. Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose, but this same tolerance and respect must be extended to those who disagree with gay marriage. My first day in office I will issue an executive order preventing government from discriminating on the basis of a person’s commitment to the classic understanding of marriage. And within the first 100 days, we will pass legislation codifying that commitment to prevent government power from being used to silence the debate. The First Amendment Defense Act is a commonsense codification of basic decency and mutual respect. I call on not only the Republicans but Hillary Clinton and every other Democrat to pledge to support this law.
“And if they refuse, you will understand how radical a power grab the Democrats imagine: the power to punish classic, mainstream religious belief and push it out of the public square. The American people believe in mutual respect, in live and let live. I have faith that our cause, so named, will not only survive. It will prevail.
“To this great cause I pledge my word. I will not fail you, friends.”
Let us watch, and wait, and see who speaks with courage and who runs for cover.
— Maggie Gallagher is a senior fellow at the American Principles Project. She blogs at MaggieGallagher.com.
Those that don’t like gay marriage should advocate to get gov’t out of marriage. It’s a religious issue and should be left with religious people. Tax everyone the same...flatten the code and get rid of marriage tax breaks and penalties.
Time to push the reset button and start over. We really haven’t had a constitution that has been followed as law since at least FDR. And this just finishes completely.
Constitution convention. Call the states together, let’s get started.
Here’s what I want GOP candidates to say about this Obamination.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
....
Damn right Congress had better get protections in to those people who do not support or recognize their sham. I know I will never accept their sham and if they try telling me they are married or she got married to her wife then they as in the past will be getting words back at them form me.
I'll vote for the candidate who doesn't just whine that he will "try to protect religious liberties". That candidate must say that same-sex marriage is an abomination before God and he will not enforce it.
More of the same stupidity. As if tax breaks and other financial benefits are the only things to accrue to marriage.
What about rights to not be forced to testify against a spouse in court?
What about inheritance? Parentage?
What about polygamy?
Your contention that Churches should be the only ones to define marriage protects nothing. Any "gay" "church" will tell you that.
The government will, much sooner than eventually, be required to officiate in marriage issues. And what they must officiate, they must define.
We should be much more succinct.
As a former, and perhaps future, candidate for president, here’s what I say:
“When the courts act against the laws of nature and nature’s God and the Constitution we have sworn to God to support and defend, I will tell them to GO TO HELL, then ignore them and their illegitimate opinions.”
AND he will not sign any budget that funds the courts to hear any challenge to this anti-states-rights gay marriage ruling or Roe v Wade.
hey Mags, ever hear the phrase “low information voter”? The vast majority can’t even read your first paragraph...
If we have to pass a law to enforce the Constitution we are doomed beyond repair.
That’s my point get govt out of it. Marriage is dead with today’s ruling.
You can’t “get government out of marriage” any more than you can “get government out of murder,” or “theft,”probate,” or etc.
The government isn’t “in the marriage business” any more than it is in the business of any of these other societal realities. But it must deal with them just the same.
Yeah. I’m the one who convinced him via several years of email communications.
Sure you can. Just treat everyone the same. Each person is an individual. All interactions between people can be contracted if they want legal standing.
Why MUST the gov’t be involved in marriage?
What do you mean by “contracted?”
Such a term implies an obligation - a LEGAL obligation - to perform.
What if one party just wants to dishonor a contract? Tough sh*t for the other party? OF COURSE, someone must ENFORCE the terms of the contract. Someone with teeth. And these are the courts.
And courts are ORGANS OF THE STATE. You can’t get around that.
Correct the courts handle contracts. My point is why is marriage even pre-defined. Get the gov’t out of it. IF I want to write a contract that says I will live with you and bob and all three of us will share equally in rents and bills and love. Then we can go to the courts and sue each other when it breaks down. Why do I need the gov’t to sanction it with pre-defined definition of a marriage.
So my question is why is the gov’t involved in defining what marriage is and require a license to get married? Just let contract law handle it for those wanting a gov’t enforceable contact. Otherwise it’s a religious deal only.
Why is this so difficult?
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.