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

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.”

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.

If Roe v. Wade didn’t lead to civil war or even civil strife, why would this?

In simple terms, allowing your neighbor to about their baby did not also kill your own child.

This ruling fundamentally alters the meaning of EVERYBODY's marriage, and by extension, the foundational principle of recorded civilization.

-PJ

This ruling fundamentally alters the meaning of EVERYBODY's marriage, and by extension, the foundational principle of recorded civilization.

Do you really think that a significant number of the American people will be willing to fight a civil war, with all that entails, over this issue?

Ultimately, the only route to survival is going to be secession.

If you're really talking "ultimately", the only route to survival is going to be the assiduous cultivation of the welfare of number 1. Disengage. The Republic no longer exists. It's every man, women, and family for themselves. If anyone thinks they can recover America from a melange of perversions, memes, financial corruption, busybodies, militaristic law enforcement, hollowed out manufacturing, open front running in the markets, and Presidential candidates out of an Our Gang comedy, I wish you good luck. I'm voting for Pete the dog.

I'm not wasting my last years worrying about it. For those of you with kids, cut the middle class upbringing and start teaching them how to function in a world controlled from the top down by psychopaths. They'll get eaten alive if you don't.

This one will be fought at the fire team level.

"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

Just wait... this issue is a sleeper. It will trigger other reaches.

Cakes and flowers are nothing. Businesses will be targeted. Churches will be targeted. Wait for the reaction from black Baptists and Hispanic Christians. Wait for the Muslim exclusions. Wait for the demands that symbols of traditional Marriage be removed. Wait for the 2% to make extreme demands on the 98%.

Wait for this to percolate. People are still reeling from yesterday's ruling.

-PJ

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.’

Perhaps, but would that be such a bad thing?

The liberal states are destroying themselves, most especially with these scotus “wins”.

Just because they won, it has not cured them of their self destruction, but in fact, it will only hasten their self destruction.

Conservative states just need to stand aside and let the lib states self destruct.

Secession will not happen. If Civil War is in our future (I pray that it isn't.) it will be a true Civil War and not a war between the states.

I am afraid that if there is a second ACW it will more closely resemble the Spanish Civil War.

"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."

Can we start forming infantry regiments yet?

Question: Suppose you did form an infantry regiment in response to this court decision.

What would you do with it? Who would it attack?

Assuming you are correct concerning CJ Roberts, would it not be in the liberals' interest to go ahead and out him so as to put in a liberal CJ prior to the 2016 election?

"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."

” If Civil War is in our future (I pray that it isn’t.)”

It’s not something anyone wants. But how do we free ourselves without it? We are bound to a government that despises us. We (in “flyoverland”)are becoming like Biafra, East Timor, Tibet or, heaven help us, Chechnya. We want to break free, but they won’t let us.

Wait for the Muslim exclusions

“Muslim” is an operative word here. This makes us even more of a target for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

Each State with their own infantry regiments with direct control of the Governor could kick out all federal officials from their state. They could also put pressure on Federal Forts to not meddle. The ultimate nullification. Yes it has come to that.

It will be a new revolution against tyranny, not a civil war.

Indeed. Wrong terminology used here.

And this is, at root, NOT about the redefinition of marriage. It is about unconstitutional fascism foisted on us. If it were not about marriage, it would be something else.

I don’t know, when you see JBT’s kicking in doors of churches and arresting pastors and members in defiance of the federal government that is not going to play well. So then they will of course resort to arresting and jailing Christians from their homes, again this won’t play well.

The question is do Christians accept the abuse and do the non-violence thing of do they eventually fight back and be declared terrorist by the state for defying the king? Either way this Pandora’s box is going to wreak hell on this country and amazing we did it to ourselves.

The resistance may be targeted to the breakdown in the political government structure. People no longer feel represented. Gays represent only 2% of the population, but had the power to frighten country leaders into discarding thousands of years of social convention. The same happened when 2% of uninsured caused the other 98% to be thrown into turmoil. Illegal immigrants are getting more rights than citizens.

The war will be over a people whose representatives are ignoring them in favor some fleeting perceived minor political advantage.

This may just be the spark that lights the other combustibles that are piling up.

-PJ

My guess is that the left likes having a CJ on the court over whom they have that much leverage so they can play the perception that he’s NOT one of their guys when, in fact, he is.

It was LBJ — crude bastard that he was — who often declared that if you “Get them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”

Thus it seems to be so with Roberts.

You’re making the assumption that blue states are ok with two separate ideologies existing together, which is wrong. It isn’t enough for a liberal to have a beliefs, they demand that you recognize and accept their beliefs, and then they demand that you celebrate and participate in their beliefs. All at the expense of your conservative beliefs and Constitutional freedoms.

Red states leaving the Union or a civil/revolutionary war is the only way to protect our conservative values since the country is now too far gone to save through voting. Boehner and the republican congress proved that. Unfortunately, I fear conservatives are too lazy, gutless, and fractured with in-fighting to actually band together and fight a civil war or a battle to secede. It is truly sad.

“. I just don’t see resistance to this happening beyond perhaps an annual protest in DC...if that.”

You are correct.
There isn’t going to be any armed uprising or any uprising at all.
A lot of Freepers talk about the silent majority but what they leave out is that the majority is silent because they don’t care either way.
As long as the wifi works and they have ESPN and enough of a job to keep all that stuff turned on then they’re not going to risk that.
The worst that will happen is that the left over reaches and for a time maybe things level off. Then after a few years of things being level everything picks up where it left off.
Gay marriage is a perfect example. About 10 years ago states voted to not recognize gay marriage. Because of 9-11 and the war things held level. Now 10 years later everything started back right where it left off and as of this morning gay marriage is a constitutional right.

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.