We live in a culture where "immediate gratification" is ingrained into our minds as the normal, and the right to "the pursuit of happiness" that our founding fathers sought through liberty and independence has been simplified to a right to "happiness" for all people. A legitimate argument may be made against the modification of the founding fathers visionary declaration, but this course of action, in today's progressive and liberal movement, causes many "trendies" to simply steer a complex discussion in a direction that allows them to confuse the real issues, ignore the troubling facts, and allows them to shout "bigot", "racist", "sexist", or "homophobe" in efforts to devalue the opinions of those who oppose popular culture, undoubtedly for fear of being demonized themselves.
Let the "progressive hipster" remember that happiness should not be the lone focus of progress, nor is it even the most important component of progress. It should be considered by all, that our right as American citizens is to the pursuit of happiness not happiness itself, and remembered by all that the happiness of one often comes at the expense of another, and therefore, the idea that all have a right to happiness is an unsustainable goal. As the old saying goes, "you can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time".
Furthermore, let us all remember that to correctly address this specific topic of same-sex marriage in the debate forum, it is vital to recognize that there are actually three main "veins" running through this discussion - which are separate issues - and we would be wise men and women to address them independently.
1.) Firstly, the Religious vein - Sin.
One of the most prominent reasons our nation is divided on the topic of homosexuality is rooted in the fact that 77% of people in the US claim Christianity as their religion. This would lead to the obvious conclusion that many people believe that morality is set by a higher form (God), and not by culture, current societal acceptances, or even subjectively set by self. This also means that the majority of people in the US believe that God defined marriage upon creation of man and woman, and not man-made laws that are subject to change with culture shifts. By this statistic, it is also safe to assume that "sin" which is defined as "transgression of a divine law" - is not recognized by all people, but only those who believe in a divine power.
I cannot speak for all people of all religions on the matter, so I will speak on the religious vein only for myself as a Christ follower, and I speak hoping that my brothers and sisters in Christ would take the words that follow to sincere thought and prayer.
There are really two sub-topics, or separate stances, to take from the religious viewpoint - Sin and marriage.
If laws are passed which allow the euthanizing of the elderly, sick, or feeble, and are deemed "acceptable" or "right" by society, I will still disagree with those laws because I believe it to be murder, which is defined by God in His Word as sin. If the laws are passed which state that theft of objects with a value of less than $5.00 are "ok" or "permissible" and not a crime, I will still refrain from stealing, as I believe it is also wrong and seen in the sight of God as sin. God fearing individuals believe that morality is written on the heart of man, and just as sin and morality are defined by God in His Word, I personally believe that Gods definition of man and wife in matrimony is the ultimate and natural definition of marriage.
If 77% of Americans claim Christianity, and assumedly believe the Word of God, then they also believe that He defines marriage in His word thoroughly. Let us not forget that God placed significant importance on the unity between man and woman, clearly shown in the fact that the very first thing God declared after the creation of woman was for man and woman to procreate and fill the Earth (Genesis 1:28). And the importance of this unity is stressed again immediately after woman is created, when the establishment of marriage is documented (Genesis 2:24). In fact, since the dawn of social structure, marriage between man and woman has been recognized as the foundational block of progress and stability by all civilizations.
I am not terribly interested in the argument over the definition of marriage according to society's current state of mind. The States could have just as easily changed the terms and law of civil unions to give the same legal rights as "traditional marriage", but it would seem that they are more interested in redefining it for other purposes, to be expounded on in the #3 vein.
The second part of the religious argument is the more important part for those who believe in a Holy, Just, and Righteous God...sin.
I believe that Christ followers (Christ-ians), who follow the Holy Bible as Gods Word to mankind, all agree that homosexuality, like other specific things, are declared in God's Word to be sin. I address the issue of sin in a previous post ("Don't Judge Me"), but this is the concern that the religious person should focus on, and with humility and love. I would stress to my fellow brothers and sisters in this literature is simply this...that we all remember that we are all sinners (Rom 3:23), and only through Gods power and the gift God presented to ALL mankind - the power of the blood of Jesus Christ - is the spirit cleansed of the stain of sin, and are we freed from the payment for our sin debt (Rom 6:23).
It is not because we earn it through our works (Eph 2:8-9)...not because we are self-righteous (Rom 3:22)...not because we deserved it, and certainly not because we are more important to God than anyone else (John 3:16). We are living in a fallen world and to a Holy and Perfectly Just God, a sin is a sin is a sin.
What I mean is that homosexuality is as detestable to a Holy and Pure God as is the lie your best friend told his boss last week, or the lust in the heart that your brother expressed over the girl that was by the pool (to which Jesus said is the same as adultery - Matthew 5:27-28), or the theft your co-worker committed when she took those office supplies from the storeroom home for her child's school project, or the idolatry that people commit when they put the love of money, or cars, or houses, or boats, or children, or anything else as their idol of worship in their lives over the Creator and Giver of Life. We (Christ followers) must remember that in Gods eyes, your spirit is either stained by sin, or it is not, and it matters not the sin that stained you. There are no levels of sin. A sin is a sin is a sin. The scriptures do not place more importance on one particular sin; therefore, we must not either.
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” —1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)My point here is this...we must not address this current issue any differently than we address liars, thieves, adulterers, murderers, fornicators, idolaters, etc. We must refrain from judging specific sins according to our personal feelings about them, dislike of them, or tolerance/acceptance of them, and we must not judge hypocritically, superficially, harshly and unforgivingly, untruly, or self-righteously. Jesus warned His disciples about hypocritical and self-righteous judgment (Matthew 7:1-5; John 8:1-11), and Paul also made a similar point (Romans 2:3).
According to Jesus, we are to rightly judge (John 7:24) and this type of judgment is strongly encouraged. We are to be “as wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16), and wisdom demands that we be discerning (Proverbs 10:13). And when we have discerned rightly, we are to speak the truth, with love being the motivating factor (Ephesians 4:15). There are a vast array of articles for the Christian on judgment, and talking to others about sin in love, with scriptural references that I encourage all Christ followers to read.
Above all else, we must remember our great commission - present the gospel to everyone as it was presented by the disciples in the days and months following Jesus's ascension to heaven - That Jesus Christ came into the world to pay for all sin for ANYONE who repents and trusts in Him, that He died on a cross as the only sinless man in history, and rose on the third day defeating sin. God is in the business of performing the impossible, and transforms lives...we should be in the business of moving our flesh out of the way so He can work through the Spirit within us.
I believe the greatest deception that the evil one has ever conceived on Earth is fooling the world into believing that God = religion. Religion is full of flawed, broken people. Hypocrites, liars, adulterers, and the list goes on and on, but God is NOT religious. Those who don't recognize God, sin, or the spirit within the body, only see us (believers) as the flawed image that man-made religion has taken on over time, and with that comes all the presuppositions that they have developed, and rightly so because we do ourselves no service by "fitting the mold" most days.
When we wrongly judge others sins, we not only feed this stereotype, and this inaccurate image of Gods purpose for our should-be intentions, but we do the opportunity to share the gospel a disservice. Just as the person who first shared the gospel with you and me, when we didn't care about God and loved living in sin, we are commanded to share the truth of the gospel and the power of Jesus Christ to transform souls and lives. We would do well to remember what Jesus said, and the importance He placed on the following command, as we approach anyone who does not know the love of God.
"Love thy neighbor as thyself" - Mark 12:31Always remember that we are only seen righteous in Gods sight because of Christ (Rom 3:22). Not because of our doing. When we cast wrong judgment on other's sin, we appear self-righteous and hypocritical, and rightly so. And if we are honest with ourselves, it is only because the Spirit constantly cleanses our sins that we are free. If Christ was not cleansing us daily, sometimes moment by moment, then we would be no more righteous in Gods sight than anyone else in the world because we would still be seen as a sinner in Gods Holy sight.
We must remember that God will be the ultimate and final judge of each person, for He is worthy to do so. He commands us to obey Him, follow Him, and to share the gospel in truth, grace, and love, to all people. Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit is the One who convicts, and changes men and women's hearts. He alone has the power to reveal truth, provide freedom from sin, heal hearts, and He goes before us and follows behind us to oversee our efforts to share the news of Jesus Christ.
One of the main roadblocks we all face when sharing the gospel is when others don't recognize "sin" as real (and why would they want to?). There is a mindset in today's world is that society/culture determines right and wrong, and people determine their own morality. Therefore, fervent prayer for God to soften their hearts, draw them to Him, and show them the reality of sin in their lives will be the only spiritual connection many of us will have to them, so let us pray that God shows them that sin affects their "life/spirit" and that He loves them, and let us remember to "rightly" judge sin, and to help lead others to the One who can forgive sin and transform hearts.
2.) Secondly, the vein of Homosexuality:
Society has become a culture of "political correctness" and "subjective morality", lending itself to a carefree attitude towards "sin". Therefore, let us move the conversation into the secular, natural world view for the discussion of the second vein - homosexuality.
There is a vast array of serious issues that those who don't condone homosexuality have a right to be concerned about, not as believers in God, but as U.S. citizens, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, as and part of the human race.
There has been a radical change in the minds of America about homosexuality in the last 30 years, but if you think it is by accident or through natural means, you would be wrong. In 1987, Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill wrote "The Overhauling of Straight America", which outlined a deceptive and strategic marketing plan to change Americas view of homosexuals, including plans for portraying gays as victims, making gays look good, making the victimizers look bad, and how to psychologically manipulate the populous through the media. It exposes a dishonest side of the homosexual agenda and was a catalyst in the changing view of America. Every American should take time to read this document for themselves, as it has undoubtedly directly affected you in the last 20 years.
"And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere!"
"While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency. Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed "secular humanism"). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here."
"These images should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the "bracket technique." For example, for a few seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is seen pounding the pulpit in rage about "those sick, abominable creatures." While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to pathetic photos of gays who look decent, harmless, and likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher, and so forth. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating."
Directly on the heals of the previously mentioned literature, Marshall Kirk teamed up with Hunter Madsen (a researcher in neuropsychiatry, a doctorate in Politics, and an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing) and released a book in 1989 titled "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s", which immediately became a beacon for the then-emerging homosexual movement. This book expounded greatly on the deceptive strategies from Marshall's previous publication, and with the influence of Madsen's expertise, laid out an even deeper plan.
"The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and assholes--people who say not only 'faggot' but 'nigger,' 'kike,' and other shameful epithets--who are 'not Christian.'"
"When he sees someone like himself being disapproved of and disliked by ordinary Joes, Direct Emotional Modeling ensures that he will feel just what they feel --and transfer it to himself."
"Note that the bigot need not actually be made to believe that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering. It would be impossible to make him believe any such thing. Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof."
"We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media."
"In Conversion, the bigot, who holds a very negative stereotypic picture, is repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs, in magazines, and on billboards and TV, of gay- explicitly labeled as such!--who not only don't look like his picture of a homosexual, but are carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or like any one of his other stereotypes of all-right guys-- the kind of people he already likes and ` admires. This image must, of necessity, be carefully tailored to be free of absolutely every element of the widely held stereotypes of how 'faggots' look, dress, and sound. He--or she--must not be too well or fashionably dressed; must not be too handsome--that is, mustn't look like a model--or well groomed. The image must be that of an icon of normality"
"it makes no difference that the ads are lies;"There is no doubt that not all in the LGBT community are on board with the outlined agenda and plans of Mr. Kirk and Mr. Madsen, but this does not negate the influence their publications have had on a large majority of the LGBT community, and on the American view of the homosexual. The deceptive psychological tactics they promote are being implemented throughout the world on daily basis. Americans have a right to be concerned about being lied to, manipulated, and deceived.
And if this "hidden" agenda is not enough to give us alarm, we can turn our attention to the issues that are visibly evident. There have been a variety of studies and tests done in the last 30 years, and the results present real concerns that should matter to everyone who values the lives of human beings, progress in society, the well-being and development of children (our future), and progress of the human species. It seems that the current progressive culture would rather focus on the "immediate (yet often) temporary happiness" and "political correctness" than to address the troubling facts head on, and honestly, one can understand why. Those who oppose this progressive movement are negatively labeled by the media, despite the fact that those (religious or not) who don't condone homosexuality have justified cause to be concerned about these serious issues associated with the homosexual lifestyle.
Health and Well Being
To start, there are serious health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle that includes but is not limited to the individuals themselves.
- Homosexuals make up approximately 2% of the population in the US, yet according to the CDC, they account for nearly 58% of the cases of HIV in the US, and in 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall.
- The HIV and AIDS diseases are a direct link to the fact that the median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.
- The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79
- According to the CDC, 75% of all primary and secondary syphilis cases were among homosexual males.
- Gay and bisexual men are at increased risk for certain other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including Hepatitis A, B and C, which are contagious liver diseases. Approximately 10% of new Hepatitis A and 20% of all new Hepatitis B infections in the United States are among men who have sex with men.
- Studies have also shown that, when compared with the general population, gay and bisexual men, lesbian, and transgender individuals are more likely to:
-- Use alcohol and drugs
-- Have higher rates of substance abuse
-- Are less likely to abstain from alcohol and drug use
-- Are more likely to continue heavy drinking into later life.
- There is a notable issue of promiscuity, which is undoubtedly a key contributor to STD's, which is referenced in the Journal of Sex Research:
"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.- More than 60% of gay men without HIV, and more than 90% of gay men with HIV have human papillomavirus infection in their anal canals, as well as being significantly more at risk for intestinal or anorectal infection/trauma.
Effects on Children
Even more troubling than the risk that the homosexual lifestyle poses to the individual themselves, or to those who could possibly contract one of the many diseases that are more prevalent in the homosexual community, is the effects that this lifestyle has on children involved.
The American College of Pediatrics released this statement after the SCOTUS decision:
“Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians in response to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision today stated, 'This is a tragic day for America’s children. The SCOTUS has just undermined the single greatest pro-child institution in the history of mankind: the natural family. Just as it did in the joint Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions, the SCOTUS has elevated and enshrined the wants of adults over the needs of children.’Although it is disappointing only 4 of the 9 justices heeded the scientific findings in the College Brief, the College will continue to proclaim the important unique contributions of both mothers and fathers to the optimal nurturing of all children.”(For a wealth of information and data, you can visit their website page on Same Sex Marriage.)
In January of this year, several adults who were raised by gay parents spoke out in the 5th circuit Federal Court against "Gay Marriage", and all four argued that "redefining marriage to include homosexual couples will likely lead to the exploitation and abuse of countless children for political and personal gain". The information they presented was a firsthand look at the effects of their experiences with homosexual parenting, and the testimonies from these individuals was riveting.
“While I do not believe all gays would be de facto bad parents, I know that the gay community has never in my lifetime put children first as anything other than a piece of property, a past mistake or a political tool to be dressed up and taken out as part of a dog-and-pony show to impress the well-meaning,” - B.N. KleinA study published in Social Science Research in 2012, by Mark Regnerus, (The New Family Structures Study) shows that children raised by same-sex parents are more likely to be on welfare, unemployed, molested, and five times more likely to commit suicide and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
The study also showed:
- Children of gay parents are more likely to commit adultery in their own relationships.
- Children of lesbian mothers are an astonishing 11 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" in childhood (but not necessarily by the homosexual parent)
- Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will (at some time in their life, not necessarily in childhood).
The large majority of people have a soft spot in their heart for the innocence and purity of a child, quite possibly because young children remind us of what is good in the world. In fact, children have been used as "leverage" or "stage props" in political campaigns and speeches by many politicians, from President Obama to Adolph Hitler and beyond. Their well-being and development is brought to the front lines of debate anytime it benefits the larger agenda of the political bureaucrats. In fact, the development of children has been a topic in the US for some time in many different discussions, mainly because the majority largely agrees that it is their development which ultimately shapes the future of humanity.
Fatherless homes have been shown to be a major contributor to poverty, maternal and child health, incarceration, crime, teen pregnancy, child abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, education, and childhood obesity. Yet Americans are asked to condone an environment that is notoriously promiscuous, where the average relationship is less than two years, even in a time in the world where civil unions are acknowledged among homosexuals in a large portion of the world and same-sex marriage is legal in 20 countries (including the U.S.), and even in "committed relationships", partners are admittedly still not monogamous. It would seem that in the name of "personal happiness", Americans are asked to deny the statistics that show that children benefit the most from households where a mother and father are present.
What does this culture of ignoring the facts for "self-gratification" teach our children, whom will be making the decisions of our future, if they can somehow escape the statistics and beat the odds? If the decision makers truly care about the development of the children, why are Americans asked to ignore the data on the instability of the household of the homosexual parent, and to ignore the data of the effects that the homosexual parent has on the child, all for the sake of political correctness and happiness?
"I wasn’t surrounded by average heterosexual couples,” she says in her court brief. “Dad’s partners slept and ate in our home, and they took me along to meeting places in the LGBT communities. I was exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the ilk.” -Why are we, as fathers and mothers and human beings, asked to ignore the fact that the traditional family unit is being attacked, even though it has been shown to be a root of stability in our children's development? Not even all homosexuals promote homosexual parenting. The openly-gay former couple Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana spoke out against homosexual partners as parents and almost "broke the internet".
“There was no guarantee that any of my Dad’s partners would be around for long, and yet I often had to obey them,” she said. “My rights and innocence were violated.” - Dawn Stefanowicz
“Now we are normalizing a family structure where a child will always be deprived daily of one gender influence and the relationship with at least one natural parent,” she explains, “Our cultural narrative becomes one that, in essence, tells children that they have no right to the natural family structure or their biological parents, but that children simply exist for the satisfaction of adult desires.”- Katy Faust
Many people, when presented with these troubling facts, will resort to the smear tactic of shouting "homophobe" or "bigot", and then present the argument that "people cant help that they are born gay". I would agree if that were actually the case. But, while the progressive cultural shift would have people believe that sexual preference is genetic, they ignore the statistics that show that sexual preference is not genetic. In fact, there have been eight major studies of identical twins done in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last 20 years, and they all arrive at the same conclusion - people are not born gay.
These folks must also ignore the testimonies of men and women who have left the homosexual or transgender lifestyle to lead heterosexual lives, start foundations to aid others, and to be advocates against the homosexual lifestyle. The argument can be made, when examining the data, that during the most critical sexual developmental stages of the youth, the homosexual environment promotes confusion and unhealthy sexual choices, and puts children at higher sexual risks.
There are real concerns about homosexuality that many people have, including but not limited to religious people. For the religious people, these concerns are separate from the concern for the soul of a person, although this is - in the mind and heart of the believer in God - the most important of the concerns. If the standard in this country is set that religious beliefs cannot and should not be forced onto others, with which I completely agree, then the same standard must apply in all other areas. Yet in schools across the country, homosexuality, transgenderism, and bisexuality are being introduced into the curriculum and taught as "natural". In fact, on Jan. 1, 2012 the California Department of Education started implementing a new law that requires all children in the state’s public schools to study the “role and contributions” of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans” to the “development of California and the United States of America.”
"This law, according to the pro-family group SaveCalifornia.com, will require the schools to promote “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans as role models” and mandate that “children as young as kindergarten must be taught to admire persons who engage in homosexuality.”Not only does this create more confusion among young people trying to find their identity in a culture that constantly changes the standards, but it demonstrates the extreme hypocrisy of a society that demands that Christians not force their views on others, and then forces views onto children through the educational system which the state controls.
There are some questions that everyone should ask themselves and continue to ask until an answer is found. Are Americans not supposed to care about the health and well-being of others and the proper development of our children? Why does the mainstream media not report on these issues? Why are people who genuinely care about others and speak about these things demonized in today's society?
3.) Finally, the vein of Authority.
This decision by the SCOTUS brings another prominent issue to the discussion - the issues of who rules over the people.
This should be a top priority for every American citizen in today's world, especially in a system such as the U.S. because one change of law dominos through the judicial system and affects others, and possibly even more concerning, is that the government counts on this domino effect to pass further legislation that was previously thwarted.
Our country was settled by people looking for religious freedom. Our independence was won by men who laid down their lives for liberty and freedom from governmental oppression. This great nation was established by brilliantly minded men who were way ahead of their time, and who constructed the documents that would guide and govern our land for centuries. Our Constitutional Republic was deliberately constructed with governing bodies that split the decision making powers, in an attempt to regulate tyranny and prevent future oppression of the people. No one body should have all the power, and up until now, no one body has. In fact, we have operated under the principle of judicial review since the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803.
Let us see what our great founding fathers said about this:
James Madison -
“The powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
John Adams -
“A question arises whether all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, shall be left in this body? I think a people cannot be long free, nor ever happy, whose government is in one Assembly.”
Thomas Jefferson -
“[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature Camp; Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”
Alexander Hamilton -
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
And let us be clear here - the decision to legalize same-sex marriage was not solely about same-sex marriage. It was, however, about individual religious freedom, the imposition of the State’s will against faith, and the redefining and encroachment of the First Amendment.
It has been said that "experience is the best teacher", so let us actually be mindful of this advice, and see what experience has taught Canada - a Country 10 years ahead of us on the same-sex decision. Canadian, internationally recognized speaker and author, child of same-sex parenting, and member of the Testimonial Committee of the International Children’s Rights Institute, Dawn Stefanowicz, wrote a warning to Americans. In this warning, she expressed how legalized same-sex marriage erodes fundamental rights, creates an Orwellian culture of control, negatively impacts children, and what to expect after this SCOTUS decision.
Her warning should chill every red-blooded American to their core.
"In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government."
"It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training."
"the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms."And right in line with her warning, and Canada's lead - Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state." - two dozen Democrats are sponsoring a House bill in America to eliminate words 'husband' and 'wife' from federal law.
In the United States, a country that cherishes the freedoms that our ancestors fought and died for, let us never become so complacent or indoctrinated into the "politically correct" mentality that we forget how and why we came to be the United States, lest we fall back into the oppression we once longed to escape and lose the liberty and freedom that our once-oppressed ancestors were willing to die for and to free their children from.
Less than a week after the ruling, a 70 million dollar law suit was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan by a gay man who says that a specific version of the Bible "that refers to homosexuality as a sin violates his constitutional rights and has caused him emotional distress".
In a society where "tolerance" seems to mean "tolerance (as long as you agree with me)", and a "politically correct" culture that is shifting towards granting anyone who complains loud enough what they ask for, it seems quite logical to think that when a church, organization, or person exercises their First Amendment rights, this ruling will most likely mean that they will be penalized for it monetarily, or at the least, demonized in the public's eye, and their business or name smeared for simply standing on their rights. In fact, shutting down churches that oppose the homosexual agenda, or at the least revoking their 501(c)3 tax status, has already been proposed.
“They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment,” Justice Scalia wrote of the majority, “a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.”This decision by the court to "find a right" (according to Justice Scalia) in the 14th amendment that was never seen before now in our nations history, also opens the door for much more. Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation, no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.
This decision also opens the door for polygamy to be legalized, and the real concerns with this type of society, which have been addressed in detail in other sources, are easy to find. In fact, it is already being filed for in Montana.
“In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.” - Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.The fact that at least 2 members of the Court’s majority opinion were under a legal duty to recuse and refrain from voting calls into question the validity of this decision according to some state officials. In the United States, where checks and balances have ruled, the ability for 9 men to be the supreme and final authority over all, is the larger concern that every American who values life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should take very seriously, lest we lose all of these things at the hand of the corrupt and tyrannical elite. It is exactly what our founding fathers warned against.
“Presidents have understood that the Supreme Court cannot make a law, they cannot make it, the legislature has to make it, the executive branch has to sign it and enforce it,” Huckabee told Fox News’ Chris Wallace. “And the notion that the Supreme Court comes up with the ruling and that automatically subjects the two other branches to following it defies everything there is about the three equal branches of government.” - Mike Huckabee
"The ruling 'says that my ruler and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,'" - Justice Antonin Scalia
"Today, the Court doubled down with a 5–4 opinion that undermines not just the definition of marriage, but the very foundations of our representative form of government"This topic has been a polarizing one that has brought discussions of all kinds to the table. It would appear that the decision by the SCOTUS is far from the "end all be all". In fact, some state officials were quick to resist the decision, either by delaying enforcement of the ruling or drafting legislation that would end state agencies’ involvement in issuing marriage licenses. This comes as no surprise to some, and this discussion seems to be far from over.
"As we prepare to celebrate next week the 239th anniversary of the birth of our country, our Constitution finds itself under sustained attack from an arrogant judicial elite. Yet the words of Daniel Webster ring as true today as they did over 150 years ago: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” We must hold fast to the miracle that is our Constitution and our republic; we must not submit our constitutional freedoms, and the promise of our nation, to judicial tyranny" - Ted Cruz
As a country of diverse people and equally diverse opinions, we are bound to disagree. It is, however, important that we understand the very real and very serious issues that need to be addressed openly and honestly by all parties. It is time we stopped ignoring the facts and start looking at things with a new perspective. A perspective that embraces the complexity of the issues instead of trying to simplify and divert...a perspective that is built and centered around facts, not feelings, and allows us to find the truth of the matters up for discussion amongst the piles of rhetoric, labels, and misinformation.
America is no longer the country it once was. Moral lines are being intentionally blurred, the media is controlling social temperature through propaganda and disinformation, and people are as complacent and accepting of whatever is on the path of least resistance. Only time will tell the final outcome of the ruling, but for now, we would benefit greatly as a nation to address this topic, and all the veins of it, with the appropriate sensitivity, respect, facts, guts, and grace that a United States of patriotic human beings should.