Posted on 06/26/2015 9:31:08 AM PDT by 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.
Well, yeah, there are excellent reasons secession is even less of a practical option than in 1860.
Then the seceding states were almost entirely united on the issue over which they seceded, although divided on whether secession itself was the way to address the issue. Once the fighting started, dissent in the south almost disappeared.
Today even the reddest states have very large minorities of people who disagree utterly on whatever issues secession might be over. And they are generally concentrated in the cities and especially the capitals.
So how does secession work when 30%, 40% or more of your population is violently opposed? Do you somehow figure out who is opposed and expel them, a type of ideological cleansing? If you do, how does that possibly jibe with the American ideals which you are theoretically fighting for?
Secession as a cure is very much like the equally silly notion of amendments or a constitutional convention as cures. If we can’t win elections, we certainly can’t successfully secede or pass amendments.
Right now it’s race... and race is at least easy to see when you want a mob.
But I never underestimate how clever evil can be.
rainbows for perversion, gay for unhappy militants, religion of peace for a death cult,
Up is now down
If we haven’t had one yet, this sure as he’ll won’t be the catlyist.
Oh no. These scumbags will just make up a ruling & give an exemption. Why not, there no Constitution. Whatever EO the bastard in the WH wants he will get & the scumbag (R)s will go along because these Muzzies will riot & won't take it but these religious people will be as always -passive.
Changing the definition of marriage that has stood 10,000 years for 2% of the population will come back to bite liberals square in the ass. If the Supreme Court didn’t learn with Roe v. Wade they will this time.
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.
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.
....
They live in that state (now a new country) and have to obey the laws of that state. Like everyone else. They can peaceful protest or not. they can be incarcerated. They can also be drafted.
Watch the secessions!
They’re lining up!
Add one more Catholic to that list in 2016.
If the Republicans can't be trusted in small things they deserve no big things.
“Today even the reddest states have very large minorities of people who disagree utterly on whatever issues secession might be over. And they are generally concentrated in the cities and especially the capitals.”
Well at some point they may feel the urge to beat feet back to a blue stata. That’s how these generally work.
If we haven’t had one yet, this sure as he’ll won’t be the catlyist.
“Civil War”? Not as long as RINOs like Boehner and McConnell control the Republican Party.
Well in this case the proffered “reasoning” sounds a lot like what carried Roe v. Wade... there is some history to “creating your own mystery.”
What sounds so civilly spiffy when one or two are doing it, turns into chaos when a whole land does it.
In fact it really adds up to a restatement of original sin.
And so there we have it. If an institution has been shown by God to no longer be worthy of worship, this is it. And it could BE that people were so rah-rah on America that they forgot the Source of righteousness that could either keep America upheld or leave it alone to fall under demonic wickedness.
Roberts’ almost certainly sided with the dissenters on the homosexual marriage thing ONLY because he knew the other side had the votes to swing it obozo’s way.
And WHY would he do that after saving obozocare TWICE? Here’s a really good reason:
Speculation is rife that obama and his minions KNOW that the Chief Justice VIOLATED THE ADOPTION LAWS OF IRELAND and have used the threat of public disclosure of that to secure FAVORABLE RULINGS from him and those on the court over whom he has some influence. The first such was their ludicrous ruling that Obamacare penalties were a TAX. And the second occurred today, when the court TOTALLY IGNORED THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACA to rule as it did. That tortured ruling has caused numerous legal commentators — Judge Napolitano among them — to opine that words no longer have meanings.
While his brutal murder of the supreme organic law of America goes unnoticed by the leftist (aka “COMMUNIST”) media, how unseemly would it be to have the CJ of the SCOTUS known as a common scofflaw?
I guess everyone has a price.
Welcome to 1984 and NEWSPEAK!
The link below provides the details.
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=4301673:Topic:1290701&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
Protestants put Obama in the White House, not Catholics.
“Churches that hold to a strict and conservative interpretation of the Bible’s teaching about gender and marriage may find themselves “Romanized”. “
In particular, black churches and mosques.
The question, Tyger, should never be “can I trust in this or that or the other man.”
In the long term the answer will always be NO.
The question should be something more like, does there look like there is a good enough relationship going between God and the man that it is worth cheering for it to continue and improve.
Catholics voted for Obama at about the same rate as the rest of the population
According to what stats? Interesting things can be done with them.
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.