Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, defended the decision to strike down a major section of this law, passed by enormous bipartisan majorities and signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton, by saying that “The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others …”
Think about that. In one sweeping pronouncement, Kennedy declares that the ONLY reason for passage of this law was that the vast majority of Americans, as expressed through the will of their elected representatives, were so full of hatred and bigotry that they wanted to “disparage and to injure” same-sex couples, and to make them feel inferior, less respected, less dignified.
In a scathing dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia eviscerated Kennedy’s moral arrogance, saying, “To defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, anymore than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to ‘disparage,’ ‘injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘demean,’ and ‘humiliate’ our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence — indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humanigeneris, enemies of the human race.”
You see, in today’s culture wars, it is not possible for the anti-religious, anti-traditionalist left to have a reasoned debate over the merits of each side. It is not possible for them to admit that it is THEY who seek to destroy the foundation of EVERY society, culture and nation in ALL of recorded history … the traditional nuclear family … and that our resistance is based on an abundance of caution for changing an institution that has served as the bulwark of society since the beginning of man’s existence. No, they must label us as homophobes, hate-mongers, religious fanatics and bigots. In this way, they get to dismiss the merits of our arguments because they declare us immoral and therefore unworthy of consideration.
In the second homosexual marriage case (Hollingsworth v. Perry), the court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing and therefore vacated the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, reverting to the federal trial court’s ruling which found a “right” to same-sex marriage. This was a decision rigged from the beginning, which is evident by the fact that the state refused to defend this law which was passed by a referendum of the people, and there is even evidence which shows that state colluded with the plaintiffs in undermining defense of the law. In effect, the referee teamed up with the coach of one team to help the other team win (this actually occurred in the Windsor case as well, with the Obama Department of Justice refusing to defend the law, as they are required to do … then again, following the law has never been much of a priority for the Obama administration).
The practical effect of these two cases is that federal benefits are now available to couples who have been married in states which recognize same-sex marriage, and those marriages have now been validated by the states. At the same time, the 38 states which do not recognize same-sex marriage are not forced to recognize those marriages … for now.
But how long will that last? You can be sure that more lawsuits will be coming, challenging the bans on same-sex marriage at the state level. This puts homosexual rights on a collision course with religious rights … and we’ve already seen how that turns out. In Boston and Washington, D.C., the Catholic Charities adoption services were forced to shut down when they refused to place children in homes with same-sex parents (even though other agencies in the area did just that). Christian dating service E-Harmony was forced to set up an alternate dating site for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered) customers, in violation of their religious beliefs. The Obama administration is waging a war on religious organizations and business owners under the auspices of “health equality,” attempting to force them to provide abortion, contraception and sterilization services in violation of their religious beliefs. Photographers and bakers who refuse to serve same-sex clients are being sued under anti-discrimination laws. It is not enough to win “equality” for the ideological left. They must destroy the other side. Religion is no longer something that no law may “prohibit the free exercise thereof …,” it is something to be done in secret, hidden within the walls of your homes and churches.
The Pharisees and the Herodians, in an attempt to entrap Jesus, asked him if it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar. In reply, the Christ commanded us that we must “Render to Cćsar the things that are Cćsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Our government has now put those of us who are religious in the position of obeying man’s law (positive law) in violation of God’s law (natural law), or be subjected to punishment for our failure to do so.
Yet this is a gross violation of not only the Constitution, but the very principles upon which our nation was founded. In Robin v. Hardaway, founding father George Mason declared, “The laws of nature are the laws of God; Whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of Justice.”
So the question is, will the religious people of this nation (predominantly Christian, but including Jews, Muslims and other religions) allow our religious rights to be decimated by the forces of secularism? Or will we stand up and fight for the republic, and the religious freedom, which our Founders bequeathed to us? The time is short. If we do not stand up and be counted now, there may not be a chance to do so soon.
One final note thought, though. The word “gospel” is an Old English derivative of the Greek “euangelion,” or “good news.” As we rejoin the rejoin the battle for our culture, our primary weapon should be our example, which should reflect the love of Christ. We should smile and laugh, and live so that others can see ours as a better way. If we want to convincingly declare the need for, and superiority of, heterosexual marriage as the underpinning of society, then we must ourselves honor it by shunning adultery, cohabitation and casual sex; and instead show the joy and benefits found exclusively within the sacred bonds of traditional marriage.