How Republicans Lost The Same Sex Marriage Case

The Obergefell decision was perhaps the most fraudulent Supreme Court decision in US history. The logic was non-existent, the arguments were phony, and the decision itself was a totally political one that, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “has no basis in the constitution or this court’s precedents.” And the ramifications of this decision are disturbing, with significant impact on children, on American culture, on the institution of marriage and on the First Amendment rights of Americans — in particular churches, Christian-owned business, and religious schools. Justice Samuel Alito warned that the decision will be used to oppress the faithful “by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

First, the issue of same-sex marriage should never have been before the Supreme Court. This is an issue our founding fathers would have insisted be decided by the democratic process. The Supreme Court can’t “interpret” something that is not addressed in the Constitution. Even more significantly, because marriage was NOT originated by human law, civil government has no right to redefine it.   

Second, for same sex marriage to be ruled “constitutional”, then, obviously, those who wrote the constitution would have to have been in favor of it and would have indicated so in the Constitution. Neither is true. And the views of our founding fathers on this issue are the opposite of what the five elite lawyers in black robes claimed they were.  

Indeed, homosexuality was looked upon by the founding generation as a deviant sexual behavior, which, by the way, continues to be documented by reams of social science research. The only time homosexuality is mentioned anywhere in the law by America’s founding generation is at the state and local levels; and then it was in defining the crime of “sodomy,” and always with steep penalties attached.     

Third, the idea that the Supreme Court trumps the other two branches of our government is a bizarre notion with little historical evidence to back it up. The founders gave it the power to offer interpretations in cases brought before it, but never gave it the power to create policy. Many of our founding fathers – Washington, Madison, Jefferson, etc – mocked this idea as one that would destroy the democratic nature of our government. It wasn’t until the Marbury v. Madison decision and some subsequent decisions that the Supreme Court essentially voted to give itself more power. But Congress never ceded them this power; and even today, there exists nothing in our founding documents that prevents the States from simply refusing to obey a Supreme Court ruling. Nullification, as it is called, by a state was common in the past and should once again be used by the states to counter an out-of-control Supreme Court.  

Fourth, Anthony Kennedy claimed in the majority opinion that homosexuality was something one is born with – “immutable” he said, a completely false notion. Genetic researchers have never discovered a “gay gene”; and the Human Genome Project, involving 150 of the world’s top geneticists, was not able to find a “gay gene.” None of the professional organizations like the American Psychological Association or even the pro-homosexual Kinsey Institute will claim that homosexuality is genetic. Kennedy made up this phony claim because if homosexuality is not genetic, and thus only a behavior, it is too flimsy of a foundation upon to redefine the ancient institution of marriage. What’s strange is that even the proponents of this case did not make the claim that homosexuals are born that way. Where is Kennedy getting this info?

Fifth, the majority wrote that “The 14th Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.” No it doesn’t. This is a bald-face lie. A first grader could read the history of the 14th amendment and deduce that it says nothing about homosexual marriages. It was ratified in 1868 and was about giving blacks first-class citizenship. No one in 1868 even knew what same sex marriage was. The justices lied again.

Sixth, the majority wrote that “they too may aspire to the transcendent purpose of marriage.” Huh? The transcendent purpose of marriage for thousands of years has been to perpetuate the human race by creating a stable and loving environment for children. There is little evidence that homosexual marriage has anything in common with heterosexual marriage. The average homosexual has a few hundred sex partners in their lifetime, and an astounding 43% of homosexuals report having more than 500 sexual partners. And research shows that most homosexual marriages are “open” marriages in which both partners agree to be free to have sex with others.  

Seventh, the majority argued that same-sex marriage “safeguards” children. What? Quite the contrary, the most recent large scale research on children raised in homosexual households is not pretty. It shows they fare much more poorly than do children raised in heterosexual households in many different categories:  education, drug use, criminality, etc. Homosexual “marriages” with multiple lovers are not a stable environment for children. Just read the horrifying stories of children raised by homosexuals – they’re all over the internet. The court majority lied again.

The homosexual former New Republic writer Andrew Sullivan wrote in a famous 1989 article that “Much of the gay leadership clings to notions of gay life as essentially outsider, anti-bourgeois, radical.  Marriage, for them, is co-optation into straight society.”  Sullivan then argues that legalizing homosexual marriage will somehow be good for the homosexual movement because it will encourage more of them to enter into committed and stable relationships. But that hasn’t happened in states with civil unions, either here or abroad; and research shows that homosexuals in legal partnerships continue to favor multiple partners and reckless behavior.  

Most homosexuals view traditional marriage as constraining their lifestyle and regard the whole idea of being homosexual as a way to rebel against heterosexual norms. Indeed, one can find anti-marriage sites operated by homosexuals all over the Internet:

Kennedy’s colleagues are leftist ideologues who would vote for homosexual marriage no matter what, but Kennedy should know better. He had research before him that details the lifestyle of homosexuals. His opinion was extremely naive, and he assumes that all homosexuals want to have committed monogamous marriages. But the reality is that very few homosexuals get married. In Sweden, it’s only 2%. In Vermont, its 22%. And of those who do get married, most are not in any way comparable to heterosexual marriages. Did Kennedy read anything submitted to him by our side? Apparently not.

Few homosexuals will ever marry; and of those who do get married, it will more often than not involve multiple sex partners. This is why homosexual relationships, on average, rarely last more than two years. The research is clear: homosexual marriage is NOT about commitment or monogamy. The goal of the homosexuals is to destroy the institution of marriage and redefine it to their liking.

Eighth, the Obergefell decision was unconstitutional since Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, according to US 28 U.S. Code 455, “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” And they didn’t. Both women had actually officiated at same-sex marriages. Ginsburg even performed a second same-sex wedding three weeks AFTER oral arguments in the Obergefell case. Ginsberg also made statements in support of same sex marriage while the Obergefell case was before the court, a clear violation of Canon A (6) of the Code of Conduct. Some have suggested that the U.S. Codes governing judges don’t apply to the Supreme Court. Wrong. The Pilla v American Bar Association case makes it clear that the judicial codes governing conflicts of interest do apply to the SCOTUS.

This information regarding Ginsberg and Kagan’s violations of the codes was submitted to the court, but Chief Justice Roberts refused to make this an issue. He had the power to do so. As Chief Justice, he is the person responsible for ensuring the integrity of the court. Indeed, Roberts and his colleagues could have voted to refuse to hear the Obergefell case unless Kagan and Ginsberg agreed to recuse themselves; but instead, they allowed Justices Kagan and Ginsberg to ignore their constitutional obligations. If one looks at previous SCOTUS recusals, they involved conflicts far more indirect than the aggressive pro-homosexual marriage actions of Ginsberg and Kagan.

There was a 25 day window to file a petition to rehear a Supreme Court ruling, and it could be only done by the losing parties and typically is based on new information or erroneous actions by the court. It is clear a petition should have been filed, based on the U.S. Code violations by Kagan and Ginsberg. However, the losing parties didn’t have the stomach or the guts to pursue such an appeal, even though all of them received documented information about the illegal actions of Kagan and Ginsberg. For the record, the losing parties were Mike DeWine, the Republican Attorney General of Ohio; Herbert Slatery, the Republican Attorney General of Tennessee; Bill Schuette, the Republican Attorney General of Michigan; and the lone Democrat, Attorney General Jack Conway of Kentucky.

Nor does it help that the conservatives on the court have ignored the recusal issue, apparently preferring to not upset the collegiality of the court over preserving heterosexual marriage, and thereby subjecting generations of Americans to an era of homosexual assaults upon the First Amendment. And yes, they had to know about the actions of Kagan and Ginsberg since this info was contained in two different motions to recuse, which they had before them but chose to ignore.  

When I emailed Ginny Thomas – the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas  – about this issue, she was appalled at my message and responded to the effect that her husband is NOT responsible for ignoring this issue. He’s not? Ok, then who holds responsible those justices who violate the clear codes governing recusal? Santa Claus? It’s nice to know that the harmony on the court remains intact while Christians and those of other faiths are now targeted for fines and jail time by the homo-fascists and reduced to second class citizenship.

After all, it is possible that the conservative justices were somehow unaware of the code violations by Kagan and Ginsberg; and I was hoping Mrs. Thomas would bring it up with her husband. Her response was that “There are many people you can consult with. I am not in the ten zillionth position!” So apparently, Mrs. Thomas, an alleged social conservative leader, won’t even talk to her husband about the most important cultural case of the century.   

So let’s be clear what happened:

  1. Three Republican Attorneys General representing three states in the Obergefell case refused to mention the illegal actions by Kagan and Ginsberg in their written briefs, or even in their oral arguments. They had this information but did not use it. Even more significantly, none of them used ANY moral arguments in their written or oral arguments, despite the fact that NUMEROUS Supreme Court precedents have defined traditional marriage as a sacred arrangement granted to us by God.
  2. The Republican Justices on the Supreme Court refused to even broach the issue of recusal with their colleagues. They could have convinced Kennedy of the inappropriateness of Kagan and Ginsberg voting and perhaps even blocked the case from being heard unless these two agreed to recuse themselves.
  3. When an Amicus, The Foundation for Moral Law, submitted two motions detailing the code violations by Kagan and Ginsberg and arguing they must recuse themselves under the codes governing recusals, they were ignored. Moreover, the second motion was NOT even posted on the Supreme Court docket until three weeks after the Court received this motion; and even then, they incorrectly labeled it a “request” and not a “motion.” And the first motion was never even posted at all.
  4. Obviously, the court was playing games. A motion would have required Kagan and Ginsberg to address the recusal issue publicly prior to participating in oral arguments. However, a “request” allowed the court to ignore the recusal issue since the court does not have to rule on a “request.” When the court illegally changed a filing from a “motion” to a “request,” the Republican Justices should have stepped in at this point and forced the recusal issue–but they chose to be silent. It is hard to believe that the Republican Justices or their staff were unaware of this highly irregular action.  
  5. Despite the illegal actions by the Court ignoring the codes governing recusal and changing a “motion” to a “request,” the three Republican Attorneys General – now the losing party — refused to use this issue to file a petition for rehearing. Indeed, they refused to file ANY such petition whatsoever. Only one, AG Mike DeWine, would even meet with pro-traditional marriage leaders and constitutional scholars to discuss this issue before declaring he would NOT file a petition. The other two Republican officials would not even meet with pro-marriage legal experts to discuss a petition.  

If people want to know why Republicans are losing the culture wars, this is how. If the Supreme Court had followed its own rules regarding motions and followed the U.S. Codes governing recusals, the case would have been won by the pro-marriage side 4-3.

If most homosexuals don’t want to marry, and those who do are out to destroy its real meaning and purpose, what then is the real goal of the homosexual movement? Obviously, it’s to force the rest of society to recognize their deviant lifestyle. They want to rub our faces in it. They want to force churches, mosques, temples, religious schools, religious business people, and religious charities to accommodate their lifestyle. They want to destroy the meaning of marriage by watering down its purpose. They want to redefine the First Amendment so as to be meaningless. As Justice Alito says, “[religious people] will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employees and schools.”

Folks, if you haven’t figured it out by now, this is war. The homosexuals want people of faith to be second class citizens in a country founded by Christians. This is all about revenge for the refusal by the heterosexual world to accept homosexual behavior as normal. The only question is whether we will fight back. Indeed, if the millions of conservative evangelicals, fundamentalists, orthodox Jews, Mormons, Muslims and traditional Catholics unite in opposition to the homo-fascist movement, we can ultimately win.

I, for one, will never compromise my religious beliefs. I will not attend a church that marries homosexuals or refuses to teach what the Bible repeatedly and clearly teaches about this behavior. And I urge every Christian to question their church about this. If a church caves in to the cultural barbarians, then leave it. If they are willing to compromise on such a sacred Biblical principle, they should go out of business.    

If you can’t find a church that remains faithful to the scriptures, start your own home church and invite your friends.  We are all used to formal church buildings and organizational structures, but there is nothing in the Bible that says anything about a “church” being in some building somewhere. Indeed, archaeologists have discovered that many of the first century churches were, in fact, homes. Remember, the “fish” sign was a secret sign used by first century Christians to indicate worship services were held within a home. Throughout the history of Western Civilization, there have been many occasions when Christians have gone underground to preserve their faithfulness to the scripture.   

If your child attends a religious school that is being forced to teach that homosexuality is normal, urge the school to resist such laws; and if they won’t, leave the school. Already, schools are being told they have to now teach children how to engage in homosexual sex. Homeschooling is an option, but also consider forming a home-based school composed of a group of like-minded families and pool resources to make it work. This is already commonplace today. Parents can take turns teaching or even pool their resources to hire tutors to teach certain topics. No building is necessary as the group can take turns using different homes. There is nothing most states can do to prevent such schools.   

Once the attacks on Christians begin to escalate, and Christians are being hauled into court, Christians need to get on juries whenever possible. If someone is being charged with violating a phony “hate crime” law, or a pastor is being charged with a crime for refusing to marry a homosexual couple, or a baker is headed to jail for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, Christian jury members have the power to prevent them from being convicted. All it takes is one “No” vote as a jury member. This is called “Jury Nullification,” and it is a concept that dates back to our founding days.   

Most Americans have been propagandized by the judicial establishment to follow the judge’s orders and convict someone if there’s evidence to do so, but that’s not really the historic role of a jury member. Juries are also supposed to decide whether or not the law in question is constitutional. If you believe the law in question violates your faith or the Constitution, then don’t vote to convict the person. This was commonly done in America’s early days because our founding fathers actually encouraged jury members to be the final “check” on out-of-control government.   

While the legal community opposes jury nullification – it threatens its power to control the outcome of cases – historically, jury members have long had the right to judge both the violation of the law and the constitutionality of the law itself. Here what’s founding father and first Chief Justice of the United States John Jay says about jury nullification: “…you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Adams, America’s second president, said that: “It is not only his right, but his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

It is also time for people of faith to withhold our votes from any and all politicians unless they pledge to support, in writing, laws that protect us from this onslaught of legal attacks coming our way. If they are not willing to protect our First Amendment rights, don’t vote for them.     

Homosexual quotas in employment at Christian churches, schools and non-profits may not be far behind. To protect our First Amendment rights, Christians may need to start perfecting networking amongst ourselves to find employees, rather than publicly advertising for employees.  

Christians need to become more discerning in regards to their charitable contributions. Many of America’s largest charities quietly support or fund the homosexual agenda, including the Red Cross, Boy Scouts, United Way, UNICEF, etc. Funding those who persecute us needs to stop. The best charities to support are small local charities operated by people one knows personally.    

Boycott those businesses that support the gay movement. And they are legion: Staples, CVS, Progressive Insurance, etc., etc. Just Google the name of the business along with the term “gay rights,” and it’s easy to find out who they are. It’s time for the millions of American Christians to make their economic clout known in the marketplace and to quit enriching those who persecute us. Christians need to learn how to network with one another to find out what businesses can be trusted.  

We need to also boycott the mainstream media. For generations, the media has misled Americans about the nature of the homosexual agenda and are now cheerleading the attacks on Christians. Many liberal newspapers are teetering on collapse. A 5% reduction in readership will kill off most of the nation’s remaining newspapers. They lie. Who needs them? Get your news from the Internet.  

Finally, let’s quit being nice guys about the homosexual movement. We know that homosexuals are 6-10 times more likely to molest children than are heterosexuals. We know that as many as a third of all homosexuals have indicated in surveys that they have had sex with minors. We know that troubled youth group homes, the Boy Scouts, and even church youth groups all have huge problems with adult homosexuals targeting the children. We know that ever since homosexuals were allowed to openly serve in the armed forces, homosexual rapes have rapidly escalated, thereby destroying the morale of our armed forces.  

We know that there are large scale studies by the Centers for Disease Control and other agencies that show homosexuals are far more likely to have mental breakdowns, abuse drugs, engage in criminal activity and so on  – all indicators of an abnormal lifestyle. We know that the best research reveals that children raised in homosexual homes are, on average, experiencing far more problems than those raised in heterosexual families.

But most Americans know little of these studies and developments because the media refuses to report on them. The dark side of homosexuality has become a state secret; and as a result, many Americans have warm and fuzzy feelings about the homosexual community because all they see is the funny gay guy on some television sitcom. It is left to the Christian community to get the truth out, and we should.  

We should not allow the media’s phony “Ozzie and Harriet” portrayal of homosexuals to remain unchallenged. If Christians have writing, research, website or blogging skills, they need to use these skills to disseminate this information. If a Christian finds out a local child molester is also a homosexual but the media leaves this detail out, he should write about it. If a Christian learns that children at a local group home are being molested, but no one is doing anything about it, he needs to blog about it and make a stink until the authorities are forced to act. If a friend reports he was sexually assaulted by homosexuals while serving in the military, encourage him to write about it and send it all over the Internet.    

It is time to stop being nice guys to those who want to take away our First Amendment rights. This may sound harsh, but we are commanded to fight evil; and while I think it’s important that Churches and Christians continue to reach out to and pray for homosexuals, we cannot ignore the fact that the homosexual movement has declared war on us–and exposing what they do is a perfectly acceptable strategy. It is time to turn the spotlight on these people who seek to destroy our cherished religious freedoms.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Right After The Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling, This Man Attempted Something Shocking

Within days of the Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, Montanan Nathan Collier went to his county clerk’s office to seek recognition of his polygamist marriage. The clerk’s office has now responded to his request.

Collier, in the eyes of the state, has been married to Victoria Collier since 2000, but also seeks legal recognition of his second wife, Christine Collier, who he married in a religious ceremony in 2007. “We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family,” he told KRTV.

The Colliers have appeared in an episode of TLC’s show “Sister Wives.”

Yellowstone Deputy County Attorney Kevin Gillen refused their request: “I am not in the business of speculating as to what types of consequences (and new laws) may flow from the recent Supreme Court case,” he wrote.

“However, until such time that laws change, the law of the State of Montana is that bigamy and polygamy are illegal arrangements and, consequently, the Yellowstone County Clerk of District Court is unable to issue such a marriage license.”

Christine said she was disappointed but expected this outcome: “We kind of anticipated that the answer would be no,” she said. “It was predictable based on how the laws are written. There’s no distinction between polygamy and bigamy in the written law. To us, polygamy is consensual, where bigamy would be non-consensual.”

Vicki Collier added that the family was disappointed with the decision: “This affects people’s lives. It was heartbreaking, and I tried to prepare Christine for that because there’s always that small glimmer of hope.” She also noted: “I just don’t understand why the government would label a law a Marriage Equality Act and then discriminate against other forms of marriage.” | Great Falls, Montana
As reported by Western Journalism, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito saw the strength of Nathan’s argument if the court ruled there is a “fundamental right” to marry the person one chooses that is not guided by the millennia old definition of one man and one woman.

During oral arguments in the same-sex marriage case in April, Alito asked Mary Bonauto, counsel for the same-sex couples, that if the court rules in her clients’ favor and overturns state laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman, how others who believe they are not being treated equally by the current definition could realistically be denied the right to marry. He offered the example of polygamy.

Bonauto responded that the law could keep the definition as being only between two people because there is usually some form of coercion in polygamist relationships.

He questioned the attorney further: “Well, what if…these are four people, two men and two women… And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under – under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case – what would be the logic of denying them the same right?”

Bonauto replied: “Number one, I assume the states would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people…”

And that is where Alito revealed her contradiction: “But, well, I don’t know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before.”

He expounded that if the court adopted Bonauto’s “mutual support and consent” definition of marriage, there really is no place to stand against all-comers demanding their “fundamental right” to marry.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his dissent in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to establish same-sex marriage as a constitutional right: “One immediate question invited by the majority’s position is whether States may retain the definition of marriage as a union of two people.”

He explains: “If not having the opportunity to marry ‘serves to disrespect and subordinate’ gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same ‘imposition of this disability’ serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?”

“It’s about marriage equality,” Nathan Collier told the Washington Times. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”

“We’re not even asking for acceptance,” Nathan added. “We’re just asking for tolerance. Let us live our lives together without fear.”

He and his wives plan to pursue their case in court.

h/t: IJReview

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Keep Your Hands Off My Raisins: Court Invalidates Antiquated Raisin Grab

Laura and Marvin Horne are raisin farmers. Early one morning in 2002, a truck appeared at their business–and the drivers demanded a whopping 47 percent of their raisin crop. The truck was sent by the federal government, and those demanding Horne’s raisin crop claimed to be operating under a “marketing order” first put in place in 1937 as part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s effort to shore up agricultural prices. Amazingly, this antiquated scheme lasted for over 65 years—well past the agricultural crisis of the Great Depression.

By 2002, the Hornes had endured enough of these raisin grabs. They refused to turn over what amounted to nearly half of their crop. The federal government assessed a fine of $480,000 for the missing raisins and another $200,000 in civil penalties against the Hornes. The Hornes fought the government through the courts and finally landed in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 allowed the secretary of agriculture to issue marketing orders to stabilize market prices for certain agricultural products, including raisins. Under this order, raisin producers could be forced to relinquish a portion of what they produced to the government without any compensation. The percentage of the crops that had to be relinquished in a given year was determined by the Raisin Administrative Committee. The plan was that the government would keep these reserve raisins off the domestic market—a reduction in supply—to help to shore up prices. This system was originally part of the New Deal aimed at aiding farmers whose agricultural products had fallen steeply in price. Unfortunately, as with most government programs, it remained in effect despite the passing of the immediate economic emergency which spawned it.

In a recent decision, Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority agreed with the Hornes. Roberts stated that the Fifth Amendment requires that property cannot be taken by the government for public use without the original owner being properly compensated. Part of the Fifth Amendment, often dubbed the “takings clause,” has been interpreted to mean that when the government takes a private citizen’s property for a public purpose—such as, for example, for the building of a road—the owner must be paid a reasonable amount for the seized property. Here, even though the property (raisins) could be regarded as having been taken for a public use—the stabilizing of agricultural prices during an economic crisis—there was virtually no compensation being paid to raisin growers like the Hornes.

In a fitting tribute to the 800th anniversary of the great document of English liberties—Magna Carta—Roberts traced the origins of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause to that charter and concluded that “the reserve requirement imposed by the Raisin Committee is a clear physical taking. Actual raisins are transferred from the growers to the Government. Title to the raisins passes to the Raisin Committee. The Committee disposes of what become its raisins as it wishes, to promote the purposes of the raisin marketing order.”

The government unsuccessfully argued that the takings clause did not apply to personal property, but the court roundly rejected that contention. Furthermore, the Department of Agriculture claimed that if the government successfully sold the seized raisins as exports, for example, growers like the Hornes might receive a residual payment which would amount to compensation. Again, the court said that the mere possibility of a residual payment was not equivalent to compensation. It was simply too contingent and indeterminate.

Other U.S. citizens are still subjected to a bevy of similar antiquated, unnecessary regulations. They should make ample use of the court’s holding here to challenge these governmental restraints and reintroduce the fresh air of freedom into markets for goods and services.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

SCOTUS-Care The Fruit Of Lawless Government

Justice Antonin Scalia coined the term ‘SCOTUScare’ in his dissenting opinion on the King v Burwell case that – by a vote of 6-3 – once again rescued Obamacare from the dustbin reserved for bad laws. Scalia references the obvious fact that the Supreme Court again re-wrote the law in order to save what its majority regard as poorly-executed good intentions. Even the pundits applauding the decision agree.

At issue was whether the law permits the federal government – taxpayers – to subsidize insurance purchased from the federal exchange in states that declined to set up their own exchanges.  The law permits subsidies only through “an exchange established by the state.” In backing the government, the Court was forced to ignore the plain language of the statute – and make no bones about it. Chief Justice Roberts stood on the principle that says the court must act to preserve laws passed by Congress whenever they can. He noted the purpose of the law was to “improve health insurance markets, not destroy them,” and opined the Court’s duty was to see beyond what the law actually said and do what its guardians meant to do – as though he is better able to divine its meaning than are its authors.

One of its principal authors – MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber – testified before Congress and was videotaped stating that he deliberately framed the statute for state exchanges being necessary for subsidies as a ploy to force every state to set up exchanges. When nearly two thirds of the states thumbed their noses at Gruber and his presidential leash-holder, the leash-holder gave away the tax revenues on his own recognizance. The Court went along with this usurpation of power – just as they did when Roberts declared a penalty was really a tax after Gruber and congressional leaders said repeatedly it was not – in order to declare Obamacare constitutional in 2012. Oh, that principle of preserving law when one is able…

But the principle over the principle is one word – legitimate. When the language of the law is plain, the logical consequence is to rule for the plain language; there is no legitimate way to preserve perversions of law. When the chief executive has clearly exceeded his authority – he has none with which to re-write a law he has re-created some thirty times – the logic is to rule against him, no matter how well-intentioned a judge thinks the effort. That is called constitutional law. What Roberts did is not law at all – it is decree. And the Taney Court employed the very same logic in 1857 when it preserved the Fugitive Slave Law at all costs in the infamous Dred Scott decision that helped precipitate the Civil War.

The Obama Administration argued successfully before the Roberts Court that many American lives would be disrupted – six and one half million – by the sudden cessation of their subsidies if the Court found against the new and improved version of a law never submitted to the sole agency – Congress – with authority to make federal law. But the Court ignores the fact that it is the administration that has made these millions dependent on an illegal program that Congress has the power to repair – should it wish to. It ignores the reality that this administration has disrupted the lives of scores of millions more by triggering massive insurance premium increases, doctor shortages, and lost medical plans with this moronic healthcare law. When something is the colossal failure we have with Obamacare, the solution is to leave the ship and rebuild, not rearrange the deck chairs while John Roberts whistles a happy tune.

Under our Constitution, the Congress is alone entrusted to make federal law. Let them do their job. And let the citizens of this land – especially the Christians and their leaders – rise in tough love to say we gave government its authority–and we can take it back. We will accept the constitutional government that we established; we will neither accept nor tolerate the perversion Obama and Roberts have made of it.

The Word of God says: “For I know the plans I have for you…plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” In other words, we cannot fail to find our God when we seek Him to the exclusion of all others. The “all others” includes Barack Obama, the Congress, and the John Roberts Supreme Court.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Here’s What Can Be Done To Protect Religious Liberty After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Last week’s Supreme Court’s decision creating the right for same-sex couples to marry will likely have broad religious liberty implications on individuals, businesses, and non-profits if action is not taken at the federal and state levels.

Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion in the case recognized this fact, but offered this reassurance. “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

Justices writing in the dissent in the case did not share this optimistic appraisal and found alarm in Kennedy’s word choice. Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that the majority appears unmoved by the “inevitability” of religious liberty and this ruling coming into conflict. “It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition.

“Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths,” Thomas wrote. “Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.”

The justice is on firm ground in his assessment that the free exercise of religion is more than teaching and belief. The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, who introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress, wrote in his famous essay on religious liberty called Memorial and Remonstrance:

Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence…This right is in its nature an unalienable right… It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him.

Chief Justice John Roberts shared Justice Thomas’ concern about the limited view of religious liberty offered by Kennedy’s opinion. “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

Justice Samuel Alito spelled out what religious liberty regarding the expression of religious beliefs about same-sex marriage under the new secular regime might look like. “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.” And we have the court to blame: “By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.”

As reported by Western Journalism, Justice Alito, in an interchange with Solicitor General Donald Verrilli during oral arguments, admitted that religious non-profits would face the possibility of losing their non-profit status if the court ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

Alito asked Verrilli if a religious school that believed marriage is between a man and woman would lose its non-profit status. He responded: “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is (sic) going to be an issue.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal notes that “Faith-based adoption and foster care agencies have been forced to close their doors, rather than abandon their commitment to placing children in homes with a married mother and father. Numerous photographers, floristscake makers, farmers, and many others have been hauled into court or fined for simply declining to help plan or participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson makes clear that in order to secure religious liberty for all Americans, action will be required at the federal and state level.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, introduced legislation earlier this month to address the problem at the federal level. The First Amendment Defense Act “would prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.” The bill already has 18 co-sponsors in the Senate and 47 co-sponsors in the House.

As reported by Western Journalism, Gov. Bobby Jindal issued an executive order last month directing all state agencies in Louisiana not to deny anyone licenses or other state benefits based on his or her “religious belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth