The supreme court has gone rogue

The not-so-supreme court rules again.

Dissenting Justice Scalia

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., June 27, 2015—The U.S. supreme court—which no longer deserves to have its name capitalized—yesterday ruled that two people of the same gender have the right to marry under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To come up with that startling conclusion, the five-judge majority, led by Justice Kennedy, wrote:

The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.

SCOTUS declares Obamacare Constitutional

If long is the whole of human history, then that is not trivial. The key question one must ask the learned judges is, “What changed?” What is the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry that has now been made manifest to these sages?

If it’s not obvious to you, you’re in good company: the four dissenting judges wrote scathing opinions.

Justice Scalia, joined by Thomas: “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.”

Justice Alito: “Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed.”

Even the Dread Pirate (aka Chief Justice) Roberts wrote, “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

The dissenting opinions are worth reading in full. Excerpts of their reasoning can be found at National Journal.

If we disagree, what should we as Christians do?

That’s the easy part: Christians answer to a higher power, the Creator of the universe who created us male and female and instituted marriage. The court has no authority to redefine what God has ordained. Christians are free to ignore the ruling. Indeed, Christian thinkers since St. Augustine in the fourth century have said that such an immoral law is no law at all. Some, such as the Rev. Stacy Swimp, go so far as to say there is a duty to oppose it:

The Supreme Court has gone rogue. It created a new law, instead of interpreting the laws…. Now is a time for civil disobedience. Civil clerks who have a Christian conscience should refuse to marry two people of the same gender…They should be willing to disobey the law, even if that means we go to jail or be fined.

Our country was founded first and foremost on freedom of religion. This ruling and the whole notion of gay marriage is seen by many as a vehicle to attack Christianity generally. Exercising our natural right to freedom of religion is likely to come at a cost as proponents take the next steps to ram the decision home.

What should we do as citizens?

The decision by the court in favor of 2 percent of the population runs contrary to the will of the majority. As reported by gay marriage proponent New York Times, gay marriage is legal in only two states whose people voted for it; now it is being imposed on all 50 states by judicial fiat.

#LoveWins, and so does the law: SCOTUS rules same sex marriage now legal

What the court wrote is an opinion, not law. Although they are accused of trying to make law, they cannot. Nor can they enforce their opinion. As Andrew Jackson is reported to have said about John Marshall’s decision in Worcester v. Georgia in 1832, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

The court won’t have to. Gay rights activists are likely to step up their suits against florists, bakers and wedding-venue organizations. Every hint of dissent must be wiped out: this is the meaning behind the Twitter hashtag #LoveWins because in the totalitarian world view of the left, love wins when all opposition has been crushed.

As we approach the Independence Day holiday, we should reflect on the words of the Declaration of Independence that were central to its original purpose:

…when a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce [the people] 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 new guards are likely to include an increased push for an Article V convention of states as well as a re-evaluation of the role of the state in marriage. There is already a proposal in Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the court.

This decision is bound to be the most divisive since Roe v. Wade. It will precipitate an uncivil war in society and is likely to be a major issue in the 2016 presidential campaign. So much for Alexander Hamilton’s opinion in Federalist 78 that the judiciary would be the least dangerous branch.

One thing is clear: in releasing the decisions in Obergefell and the day prior in Burwell, the court has abandoned its constitutional role as judge and attempted to take on the role of the legislature. In doing so, it has greatly diminished its reputation and claim to authority.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • Mike Taylor

    First of all the country being founded includes but IS NOT LIMITED TO freedom of religion. Hence it does not give anybody the right to persecute another group. Second this is not an attack on Christians. Nobody is attacking anyone, rather rights are being given to someone. Third is that divorce is also illegal in the bible but we have no problem with that. And forth, are you so much of a damn bigot that you really can’t accept two same sex people getting married? Are you really that stuck in time that you can’t just move on past this (now) non issue? Things are happening in the world. Amazing things, and all you care about is gay people getting married, and the saddest thing is it doesn’t even affect you. Your life will not change because gay people can be legally wed.

  • Freedom

    It is easy to write this article and tell folks not to obey this ruling and be willing to go to jail instead. But what happens to their children when those clerks are hauled off to jail? What becomes of their pets when no one is there to care for them? Sure, people can choose to oppose the ruling and go to jail for their beliefs. But what happens to everyone who depends upon them for their own survival? There are better ways to oppose than to break the law.
    We would have anarchy is everyone chose what laws they would obey/not obey. The system may not be great, but it’s always best to keep working within the system.

  • Freedom

    Gay people marrying each other does not affect non-gays. If you don’t approve, then don’t attend the wedding. If you think they will go to hell, well, they are not taking YOU with them, so why should you care? Live your own life and let people who are consenting adults in love with each other live their own lives with as much freedom as you want to have in yours.

  • Freedom

    All heteros who enjoy using “the back door” of their wives or girlfriends….that “back door” is taboo to you too, since it’s not the biblical method of “interaction”.. Bet you didn’t know that, considering how many women admit that their husbands and boyfriends enjoy doing “it” that way.

  • 21st Century Pacifist

    Al, you don’t get it. You don’t have to be gay, have friends that are gay, go to gay weddings or attend services with gays. This decision is all about how some people didn’t have the same Civil Rights as the rest of us heterosexuals. By denying the right to marry you would in fact affect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to about 15% of the population. I have friends and family that are gay, I have never treated them like second class citizens and this new ruling tells the homophobes that they have to also. As for the Supreme Court, I wonder how you would have reacted if the decision was the opposite.

  • Dirk Sayers

    How is expanding the franchise long taken for granted by “the majority” tantamount to “going rogue?” What am I missing, Al?