Why the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage could lead to civil war

http://allenbwest.com ^ | June 26, 2015 | Allen B. West

[NKP_Vet]

[Note: this is an update to an article originally posted on May 4, 2015]

Today the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of same sex marriage in all 50 states. My friends, we are witnessing the end of federalism in our nation. In a single vote, 5 folks basically just told the states to “stick it.”

Furthermore, we are in effect nullifying the First Amendment.

Consider this: what happens when a gay couple goes into a church wanting to plan a ceremony and the pastor says no? We now have a conflict between the First Amendment and individual behavior.

Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia summed up his disgust with this ruling in a footnote on page 7 (note 22). He says, “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

With this ruling, the Supreme Court is essentially saying individuals have civil rights based on their sexual behavior, and setting up a monumental battle with the free exercise of religion. This could well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back – that camel being the up till now silent, passive Americans who have been cowed into “tolerating” societal changes that go counter to their fundamental beliefs.

As reported by the Christian Post in April, “The United States Supreme Court may soon liberate the biblically conservative church from old “prejudices” that should have long ago been “jettisoned,” forcing it into “rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity,” in the words of a recent writer in The New York Times.”

“Homosexuality must be removed from the “sin list” and, according to an MSNBC commentator, traditional marriage proponents must be forced “to do things they don’t want to do.” Sadly, this crusade will be like the Marxist “liberation” movements that promised to “free” people, but really were about control and suppression. The culmination may come as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on same-sex marriage cases beginning April 28. By July 1 the Court possibly will issue an official ruling regarding the constitutional right to homosexual marriage. The Court’s decision may impact the form of biblically based churches dramatically. Churches that hold to a strict and conservative interpretation of the Bible’s teaching about gender and marriage may find themselves “Romanized”. The elites of first century Rome would not allow the church an institutional presence in society. “The Christian churches were associations which were not legally authorized, and the Roman authorities, always suspicious of organizations which might prove seditious, regarded them with jaundiced eye,” writes Kenneth Scott LaTourette.”

I found the statement “rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity” as rather odd. And the comments from the MSNBC commentator of “traditional marriage proponents being ‘forced’ to do the things they don’t want to do” as somewhat threatening.

These statements by progressive socialists are indicative of a lack of regard and respect for the First Amendment right of religious liberty. Here is where I see an incredible philosophical battle looming. Now that SCOTUS has ruled there is a constitutional right to marriage – which I fail to see how that could be construed — and the radical gay left decides to push the envelope against churches, it will be a strategic miscalculation for the liberal left.

This is why the solution of civil unions should have been the solution. If the country is “forced” to accept something that goes counter to a traditional value, there will undoubtedly be push back. And that push back will result in a galvanizing issue which I do not believe the liberal progressive left fully comprehends.

It’s simple — in the 2012 presidential election there were some five to seven million evangelical Christian voters who sat it out. They were not inspired and therefore did not participate. However, I believe with this decision, the left has overextended itself — as it has already based on courts overturning electorate decisions – and you will see a social conservative issue that will have greater prominence. Some on the center-right will say, drop it, that’s a bad policy recommendation. This issue will not lend itself to dismissal and cognitive dissonance — there must be a solution. The social conservative issue of marriage will not be thrown upon the ash heap. It shouldn’t be the prominent issue, but it does have cross interest appeal.

The Christian Post postulated, “What happens if local churches that do not embrace same-sex marriage find their legal status shaky or non-existent, as well as parachurch groups, conservative Christian colleges, church-based humanitarian agencies, and all other religious institutions – Christian and otherwise – supporting the traditional view of marriage. Without state-recognized corporate status everything from mortgages and building permits to employment and hiring practices is threatened – all of them essential for institutional function.”

“Journalist Ben Shapiro notes that there is already a movement on the state level “to revoke non-profit status for religious organizations that do not abide by same-sex marriage.” The Supreme Court’s decision could make churches refusing to comply “private institutions engaging in commerce,” and therefore subject to laws already in place. Refusal to perform a same-sex wedding would put a church out of business. Current trends seem to flow against conservative religious institutions. All the elites that set and propagate cultural consensus are aligned in support of same-sex marriage – the Entertainment Establishment, Information Establishment, Academic Establishment, and Political Establishment.”

However, are the entertainment, information (media), academic, and political establishments truly representative of American culture? Or do they just have a more prominent position, making us believe they have a majority opinion?

There has been little talk about how, during the Obama wave of 2008, same-sex marriage ballot proposals in two states did not win as liberal progressives and the gay left had hoped – in Florida and California. The quiet point that no one wanted to comprehend was that countless droves of black voters swarmed to the polls. And as they voted for the “first black president” they did NOT vote to bring about gay marriage in their states. Why? Because of traditional biblical beliefs. Now, in 2008, Obama stated he didn’t support gay marriage — when he decided to flip flop — the hushed-up secret was the anger and disdain this caused with many black pastors and ministers. We all know the Democrats wholeheartedly depend on an obedient black electoral patronage — what if 25 percent of blacks say no?

And let me be clear, the Hispanic community is very religious, traditional and family-oriented as well. An ill-conceived assault against the church — a rallying point across the minority communities — could bode dismay for the liberal progressives of the Democrat party heading into the 2016 election year. It could be a policy issue that works against the left and galvanizes those who support traditional marriage.

I know there are folks on the liberal progressive left who frequent this website. So here is my message. The Christian church community is a lot bigger and more powerful than you think — they kept a Republican from winning the White House. And these aren’t just old white men – there’s a growing young Christian constituency. You can criticize the Christian right all you want, but surrendering one’s faith principle for political gain is not a viable proposition. And in the case of prosecution of the Christian church, there could be a rallying of churches, regardless of race, the likes of which this nation has not seen.

The SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage is not about the issue itself — it is about individual religious freedom and the imposition of the State’s will against faith. After all, it is the original reason why the Pilgrims fled England. And since there is no place for men and women of faith to retreat — they will make a stand. This ain’t first century Rome.

[Sherman Logan]

Get out to where?

[sanjuanbob]

When will the Supreme Court take up the legitimacy of Santa Claus?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

At least most of today’s sodomites will be dead within twenty years from the various diseases they carry, and they can’t limit themselves to one partner, “married” or not.

Maybe in twenty years the people will realize, “Hey, this is not working out the way we planned!”

[HiTech RedNeck]

I think much of what went as Christendom has let its allegiance to the Lord get loose and sloppy.

We saw the consequences in both past Presidential election cycles. Circular firing squad of “Christian” (and secular) right, left a mediocre candidate standing. Mediocre candidate proceeded to permit a fool to slide by him.

[AngelesCrestHighway]

I will not live in Obama’s world of liberalism. It’s a hatchet job on America at 200 mph...

[Flavious_Maximus]

I predict that if Russia or China ever attack or invade the USA, few people in America will bother to defend this government. I am hoping that a nice size meteor lands in Washington DC.

[Georgia Girl 2]

This is another attack on states rights and Christianity. Next they will want to dismantle the individual states and just have one big federal govt. The Constitution is now a living document. If everything is decided in Washington why do we even need state governments. Just wait its coming.

[Bluewater2015]

Get out to where?

---

I meant that in a figurative sense. For much of the United States, living under DC’s thumb has become a burden, not a blessing. There’s no reason why the South, TX, some border states and most of the agricultural and mountain west, most of whose residents do not much like DC and the coastal elites anyhow, could not exist as their own nation. The “S” word has to be on the table now. Too bad it has come to this.

[AngelesCrestHighway]

Liberalism makes me physically ill...

[Biggirl]

Look’s like “lock and load” time coming.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Sounded to me like he was talking about a bargain to bring in one of the liberals. But he wouldn’t embrace such arrant nonsense as began this Brave New Reformulation of what a right means in the USA. Now it’s some free floating Entitlement.

So what free floating Entitlement gets the first place, going forward? Is this now a situation of Squeakiest Wheel Always Gets The Grease?

Will Christendom be able to resist the temptation to cheapen itself while going for the obvious hole here? (”Well, what about our rights too?” while remembering that those are bestowed by God and not by men and so if men refuse they cannot negate them.)

[Digger]

It won’t lead to civil war because we are too gutless.

Exactly. Still too many fat cats, too lazy & lack of passion. Look how the these leftist NEVER stop promoting their filth. How many conservatives have a third of their passion. No, conservatism is a dying breed in this nation.

[Sherman Logan]

Only 55% of Hispanics identify as Catholic, which of course includes a great many “cultural Catholics.”

45% identify as something else, with 22% as Protestant, most of them Evangelical. I assume, possibly erroneously, that a higher proportion of Protestant Hispanics take their faith seriously, as the easy thing to do is surely to remain Catholic.

There are quite a number of thriving Protestant Spanish-speaking churches in my neighborhood.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/hispanic-catholics-pew-survey_n_5280010.html

[bicyclerepair]

I think the fat lady already has laryngitis.

[FreeAtlanta]

Sum Ding Wong

[Lurker]

“Well, he is right about one thing. The Christian right did indeed make sure a Republican didn’t win the White House.”

I wasn’t aware a Republican was running.

L

[central_va]

Can we start forming infantry regiments yet?

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

Words mean things. Our advancement as a society will be seriously curtailed if we redefine them to suit fleeting political desires.

There is no possibility of honor or integrity if you can’t keep your word due to drifting definitions.

[Cboldt]

-- Sounded to me like he was talking about a bargain to bring in one of the liberals. --

That makes sense too. And that way, since the nonsense has no legal effect, just glitter for the gullible, it's not really trading positions. He's just mocking the rhetoric, even if he agreed with the reasoning and conclusion.

-- So what free floating Entitlement gets the first place, going forward? --

Race, it's always race. Either they get bought out, or they create violent public mayhem.

-- Will Christendom be able to resist the temptation to cheapen itself while going for the obvious hole here? --

Some will, some won't.

[Sgt_Schultze]

One state, just leave us to one, single, Constitutionally constructed state, and we’ll leave the other 49 alone. We’ll even pay into a fund, based on population, for defense expenditures. Check back in 10 years and assess which “country” is in better shape.