The sad news of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling came out on
Friday.
Normally on controversial rulings, I go through the opinions in this blog and consider the legal ramifications. But we’ve been through much of this
already. Kennedy’s opinion ignored the law and came down to something about him
personally not wanting homosexuals to feel lonely--not kidding. (He ignored his own recent
ruling that marriage law was up to the states, not the federal government.)
The irony of the day was Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent
about the majority ignoring the law—after he had done exactly that the day
before on the King v. Burwell decision. All four dissenting judges wrote their
own dissents—all worth reading. Again, Justice Scalia’s is the essence of
clarity and truth.
Justice Kennedy is at fault—moreso than Breyer, Ginsburg,
Kagan, and Sotomayor—because the others are partisan hacks, but Kennedy swings,
so the decision was his. He is like the independent voter, going by some
personal list of criteria mysterious to those of us with real principles, with
the hubris to believe that his mind workings are more evolved than the rest of
us.
That single unelected person in a black robe decided for all
of America that there is, somewhere hidden in the 14th Amendment, a heretofore
unknown right for homosexuals to marry. Because he knows more than God.
He doesn’t actually know more than God. Reactions to the
ruling seem to forget that.
The people's house, with a small sub-group's flag superimposed on it, photo from WhiteHouse.gov |
The White House cheered by changing the white lights to be a
rainbow. They were able to accomplish that lighting change that very day. One might think that was planned for way ahead of time, almost as if they had control over the ruling. Author Brad Thor pointed out that this was practically the first time
the White House wasn’t surprised by the news; practically everything else they claim to learn about as we did, on
TV news broadcasts.
We might note that the White House is the people’s
house, not the Obamas’. Their “gay pride” in the face of more than half of
Americans is intentionally offensive. No other flag has been represented in
colored lights on the White House—not even red, white, and blue on the 4th
of July. The LBGT flag gets special privileges, just as homosexuals insisted on
special privileges concerning marriage.
In addition, the president gave a speech (also likely prepared well in advance of the ruling, as if he knew the outcome). Apparently forgetting that he deceptively
campaigned in 2008 as a supporter of traditional marriage, he said,
Opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply
held beliefs…. All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that
fact. Recognize different viewpoints. Revere our deep commitment to religious
freedom.
But today should also give us hope that on the many issues
with which we grapple often painfully real change is possible.…
Shifts in hearts and minds is [sic] possible…. And those who
have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach
back and help others join them.
Let me translate: “You bitter
clingers need to give up your religious beliefs; we’re right and you’re wrong,
and we’ll force you into compliance. We might go easier on you if you submit to
our superiority now.”
Here’s the thing: the president of this country is not more
powerful or more all-knowing than God. Neither are any black-robed judges.
Contrary to popular belief, marriage—real marriage—didn’t
change on Friday. Real marriage is older than all earthly governments, and it
won’t change because people change their opinions.
It predates this earth. But on our planet it was instituted
by God to our first parents. He gave Adam and Eve a covenant—between each other
and the two of them together with Him—to sanction the behavior that they would
need to experience (and hopefully enjoy) in order to multiply and replenish the
earth, so that they would experience the joy of having posterity.
Marriage was a blessing to them from the beginning, and to
all of us who have come after. Saving that sexual act until it is sanctioned by
covenant offers many blessings: knowing who a child’s parents are, committing
both parents to the raising of their children, economic stability, absence of
sexually transmitted diseases, and more. There is nothing instituted in any
culture at any time that is better for building civilization.
Marriage provides care for children during the years before they
are productive. It provides support for women during childbearing and raising small
children when they would otherwise struggle to be self-sustaining. It motivates
men to more productivity in order to meet their family obligations. And it
connects men and women permanently, to work together for the economic and
social well-being of their family unit.
There is a detail about this that has been ignored in today’s
society. Marriage is to sanction the procreative sexual act—before it takes
place. It legitimizes no sexual act other than the procreative one. And it is
understood that extramarital participation in that act is illicit: i.e.,
outside the law, not sanctioned by law.
In religious terms, any sexual acts outside of marriage is a sin. It is
outside the covenant. God has not approved it. That’s why the terminology
includes phrases like “illegitimate child,” “living in sin,” or “making an
honest man (or woman) out of me.”
Governments, which usually support the covenant, refer to the specific
procreative act. This procreative act requires a male and a female. If you don’t
believe this, your biological education is sorely deficient. A marriage isn’t
consummated until the man and woman engage in the act. Failure to engage in it
is grounds for annulment.
Homosexuals never, ever, world’s without end, engage in that
act with someone of the same sex. It isn’t a physiological possibility. What
they do is sexual, but it isn’t what is required for marriage. The Supreme
Court can’t make it so; all SCOTUS can do is confuse the law, and take away the
honor from real marriage that it has always had because of its benefit to
society.
Furthermore, homosexuals are not entering marriage in order
to place within the law any sexual act they have been refraining from; you may
not find, in the entire history of homosexuality, a couple that keeps
themselves pure and virginal up until the moment their government deems them
married. They aren’t insisting on their alignment with God; they are insisting
that society ignore what marriage is and honor their sexual act as equivalent
to the procreative act—just because they want the honor.
Society has been duped.
This has been the result of a media campaign. If truth were given even half as much media, beliefs wouldn’t have been manipulated.
The issue has been framed as about fairness and tolerance.
There may have been times, a century ago, when people were prevented from
making a living or getting housing because of their homosexual lifestyle. That
mostly disappeared long ago. Long before judicial activism stepped in to “help.”
But the media campaign has portrayed anyone who points out the obvious—that real
marriage is best for children, families, and societies as a whole—as bigoted
homophobes. Name calling. As well as some sticks and stones in the form of ostracism
and business ruin intended to instill fear.
What we’ve seen on social media this past weekend is a lot
of bandwagon jumping. People want to pat themselves on the back for not being
bigoted, so they put a rainbow on their profile photo. They think they’re
meaning, “I’m open-minded; I’m a good person. Because I don't hate gays.”
But they’re actually falling into the trap of another
meaning: “I don’t want to be seen as something the loud media calls bad, so I’m
labeling myself the way the media wants. And I think we media-go-alongers know
better than God. Those people who don’t go along with us will be labeled
negatively and will be persecuted, as they should be, for not giving in with
us.”
If you’re a go-alonger, you seem to have fallen for some
things that are not true. Such as, homosexuality is a genetic reality; a person
is made homosexual and cannot change or even refrain—and shouldn’t.
Let’s look at what this means to a Christian, since actual
Christian believers are to be the target of the persecution. You go-alongers
are saying that, while God requires obedience to His commandments for all
heterosexuals, He made homosexuals exempt to His law, because no homosexual
should be expected to refrain from sexual acts God’s law forbids. You are
saying God must have made a mistake—because science (not real science, but
pseudo-science) says homosexuality is natural, and inborn, and unchangeable—and
that means they have no free will to control their behavior.
You are saying, either God has to change His law, or else He
is unfairly excluding an entire group of people who haven’t done anything to
keep themselves out of heaven except that sexual sin thing that you think
shouldn’t apply to them. So God is just a big unfair meanie. According to you.
Because you know better than God.
Can a real Christian be wrong on such an issue? Yes, we can all
be wrong on a lot of things. But God is not wrong. So if you’re out of harmony
with God, it is up to you to correct yourself. Christians who are in harmony
with God on family and marriage will not persecute you; we will use persuasion,
example, and patience. That’s what Christians do. That is what tolerance looks
like. Not giving in, not celebrating sin. But with love trying to persuade all
people to come unto God.
Tolerance does not look anything like coercing Christians to
use their talents and abilities to celebrate what God has clearly declared to
be a sin. So if you’re one of those who says, “Just go ahead and bake the cake
already, you troglodyte bigot,” you’re on track to support tyranny. We’ve seen
it before. Everywhere there has been tyranny.
Taking the side of tyranny for temporary safety from
persecution might seem like a good idea to you now, but you will answer for it
before God.
I call you to repentance, with gentle invitation, but
firmly. I’ve taken a stand. And experience tells me I’m better off siding with
God than with Obama, or Justice Kennedy, or even friends who put pro-homosexual
flags on their profile photos.
______________
PS: Son Political Sphere reminded me of an additional point. Justice Scalia has pointed out that every time Kennedy writes that something is safe, the next ruling he writes endangers that very thing. This time his opinion assured us that our First Amendment guaranteed freedom of religion is safe. That means the next thing you can expect from Justice Kennedy will be his explanation of why we do not have that right. We'll be watching.
______________
PS: Son Political Sphere reminded me of an additional point. Justice Scalia has pointed out that every time Kennedy writes that something is safe, the next ruling he writes endangers that very thing. This time his opinion assured us that our First Amendment guaranteed freedom of religion is safe. That means the next thing you can expect from Justice Kennedy will be his explanation of why we do not have that right. We'll be watching.
No comments:
Post a Comment