Thanks To The American Church, SCOTUS Has Legalized ‘Gay Marriage’

By now, everyone on the planet knows that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has rendered a decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. In a landmark 5-4 decision, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan ruled that states may not prohibit homosexual couples from getting “married.” The reasoning of their decision was based on the 14th Amendment’s “Due Process” clause.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy said: “Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.”

Obviously, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights specifically about the right of homosexuals to “marry.” But there is something in the Bill of Rights specifically about the right to keep and bear arms. Using the reasoning and conclusion of the Court’s homosexual “marriage” ruling, states have absolutely no authority to deny recognition of concealed carry permits that have been issued in other states. In other words, if the 14th Amendment protects an unspecified right (same-sex “marriage”), it certainly protects a specified right (the right to keep and bear arms). And since some states recognize the right of citizens to openly carry firearms, this right should also be determined to be protected by the 14th Amendment. If states must recognize driver’s licenses (and now same-sex “marriage” licenses) issued in other states, it is now clear that they must also be required to recognize concealed weapon licenses issued in other states.

See this report:

SCOTUS Same-sex Marriage Decision May Have Just Legalized The Concealed Carry Of Loaded Firearms Across All 50 States, Nullifying Gun Laws Everywhere  

It should be obvious to any objective person that by providing 14th Amendment protection to homosexual “marriage,” SCOTUS has banned most gun control laws throughout the country. However, I seriously doubt that the five justices passing the same-sex “marriage” decision had gun control in mind. Nevertheless, that shouldn’t stop gun rights activists from taking advantage of the SCOTUS decision.

Many libertarian jurists are lauding the SCOTUS same-sex decision as a victory for the right of individuals to enter into contracts with one another. But marriage is more than a “contract.” It is an institution–an institution created by GOD. No human authority can redefine what our Creator has already defined in both revealed and Natural Law. Forevermore, true marriage can only be between a man and a woman–a SCOTUS decision notwithstanding.

Senator Rand Paul wisely noted: “While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.

“The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.

“I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.

“Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th Amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.

“Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.

“It seems some rights are more equal than others.

“Marriage, though a contract, is also more than just a simple contract.

“I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.

“Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals.

“This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.

“Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when he says: ‘In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.’

“The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.

“Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.”

See the report here:

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

Note that Dr. Paul correctly recognized that the SCOTUS attempted to render a “redefinition” of marriage. That it did.

Since the beginning of human history (not to mention Western Civilization), marriage has been recognized as being between a man and a woman. Again, marriage is much more than a civil contract.

As I have noted several times, the right of civil contracts includes the right of homosexuals to enter into civil unions. But marriage is NOT a civil union. Nor is it merely a civil contract. In fact, real marriage is NOT a civil matter at all. It is a spiritual matter. Civil governments can recognize or not recognize all they want; it doesn’t change the definition of marriage one iota. Civil governments can no more redefine marriage than they can redefine worship or prayer. Marriage is a divine institution. Therefore, it is completely outside the scope and jurisdiction of SCOTUS or any other civil authority.

The problem is that many years ago, the Church decided to allow civil government licensing authority over marriage. When they did this, they absconded divine authority over marriage and reduced it into nothing more than just another government-sanctioned civil contract. Now the chickens have come home to roost.

The problem is not SCOTUS; the problem is the CHURCH.

Rand Paul is right: “Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.”

So far, the only State to have the correct response to the SCOTUS decision is the State of Alabama, led by my friend Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. The State of Alabama is encouraging county courthouses to not issue ANY marriage licenses. And this is exactly what many Alabama counties are doing. This strategy should be replicated by all fifty states and the counties within those states.

Furthermore, pastors across the country should stop performing ALL marriages that are licensed by the State. In other words, the Church should do what it did for some 1,800+ years of Church history: keep the State out of the marriage business.

But all of that doesn’t change the intention of the Court decision and the agenda of the radical secularists who are the impetus behind the decision and their attempt to expunge all semblances of Christianity (and morality) from America’s public life.

In the majority decision, Justice Kennedy attempted to throw people of faith a bone by stating: “Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. 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.”

However, notice that Kennedy said that religious people may “advocate” for traditional marriage, but he said nothing about non-compliance. What will happen to those pastors and churches that refuse to “marry” same-sex couples? If you think for one minute that radical homosexuals are going to be content with a Supreme Court decision that doesn’t have enforcement power, you are very mistaken.

Already, allies of the militant homosexual agenda are promoting public censorship and the loss of tax exempt status for those churches that refuse to submit to the Supreme Court decision.

My friend Cal Thomas got it right: “Given their political clout and antipathy to Christian doctrines, some gay activists are likely to go after the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges that prohibit cohabitation of unmarried students, or openly homosexual ones, as well as churches that refuse to marry them. As with legal challenges to the owners of bakeries that have been in the news for refusing to bake a cake for same-sex weddings, activists who demand total conformity to their agenda will seek to put out of business and silence anyone who believes differently.”

See Cal’s column here:

You’ve Been Warned, America, Gay Marriage Is Just The Beginning

Cal is exactly right. The purge has already begun.

“CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that it wasn’t legal ‘to talk about gay people the way Justice Scalia used to talk about gay people’ while recounting Scalia’s prior dissent in Lawrence v. Texas on Friday’s ‘CNN Newsroom.’”

See the report here:

CNN’s Toobin: Not ‘Legal’ For Scalia To Talk About Gay People Like He Used To

Again, this is from CNN’s SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST. “Beam me up, Mr. Speaker.” Anti-Christian purgers are already advocating the cancellation of the right of free speech in the wake of the SCOTUS decision.

Look at this: “A newspaper in Harrisburg, PA has announced henceforth it intends to censor certain views about marriage deemed no better than racism, sexism, anti-Semitism.

“John L. Micek, editorial page editor and formerly state capital reporter, made the announcement shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its imposition of gay marriage on the county. Micek wrote:

“‘As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same sex marriage.’ In a Tweet later in the day, Micek doubled down, ‘This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic letters. To that we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.’”

Here is the report:

Pennsylvania Newspaper Censors All Dissent On Same-sex Marriage

You can take this to the bank: there will be hundreds of local and State laws reflecting the SCOTUS decision and hundreds of lawsuits forthcoming against people who seek to live by their religious convictions by not directly participating in homosexual “marriages.” And that means there will be hundreds of court decisions ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, hundreds of arrest warrants, civil fines, prison sentences, etc. Anyone who doesn’t see this coming is blind.

Then there is this column written by Mark Oppenheimer, who writes for America’s flagship newspaper, The New York Times, calling for the elimination of tax-exempt status for churches on the heels of the SCOTUS gay “marriage” decision.

See Mark’s column here:

Now’s The Time To End Tax Exemptions For Religious Institutions

You can mark it down: his will not be the last such call.

So, this begs the question, what will all of these Romans 13 “obey-the-government-no-matter-what” preachers do now? When they are told by the IRS and local civil authorities to “marry” homosexuals or lose their tax exemption–or maybe even go to jail–what will they do?

All of this goes back to what I’ve been saying for years: the Church is to blame for this mess. Pastors are to blame for this mess.

For decades, pastors and churches allowed the state to supplant the authority of Christ over them. They volunteered to become creatures of the state by submitting to the IRS 501c3 non-profit, tax-exempt status. By doing so, they forfeited their independence and autonomy (not to mention their spiritual identity and authority) and became nothing more than a state-created non-profit organization. Again, now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Actually, I think it’s time for pastors and churches to decide once and for all to whom they belong and what they are. And if that means losing their precious tax-exempt status, SO BE IT.

For the sake of tax exemption, pastors and churches have stayed mostly silent on virtually every evil contrivance of civil government under the sun. Most of them said nothing when SCOTUS expunged prayer and Bible reading from our schools; most of them said nothing when the Gun Control Act of 1968 (which is almost copied word for word from Adolf Hitler’s gun control act) was passed; most of them said nothing when SCOTUS legalized the murder of unborn babies; most of them said nothing with the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, indefinite detention of American citizens under NDAA, and just recently, when the Republican Congress collaborated with Barack Obama to cast America’s national sovereignty upon the altar of international “free trade” deals. For the sake of tax exemption, the vast, vast majority of today’s pastors and churches are totally silent about almost EVERYTHING.

So, what will America’s pastors and churches do now? What will they do when they must choose between “marrying” same-sex couples and losing tax exemption? If their track record is any indicator, we know what most of them will do: THEY WILL SUBMIT TO CAESAR.

Plus, the SCOTUS decision opens the door for a host of other possibilities. If every consenting adult has an absolute right to enter into civil contracts, how can a State prohibit polygamy? In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Roberts said that the Court’s decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” made the future legalization of polygamy inevitable. Where does it end?

Popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh agrees with Justice Roberts. Read Rush’s analysis here:

Rush Limbaugh: Here’s What’s Next For Marriages

And if a State must recognize polygamous “marriages,” what’s next? Where will it end?

And there is one more thing that almost no one is willing to talk about: what is at stake here is the national acceptance of sexual perversion. The SCOTUS decision lends national approbation to an act that our Creator has condemned with the strongest language. (See Romans chapter one.) It has lent national approbation to an act that Western Civilization has always (rightly) regarded as deviant.

Understand this: once any society universally embraces and promotes the sodomite lifestyle, there is no going back. One cannot find a single civilization in history that has survived once homosexuality has become a driving, dominant force over it. It is both a divine and Natural Law. There is a huge difference between recognizing the civil rights of individuals to live immorally (that is a personal matter between the individual and God) and forcing society as a whole to grant societal acceptance and recognition to the immoral act. To quote Rand Paul again: “The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.” Yet, that is exactly what the Supreme Court has done.

But, once again, the fault is the Church. The Church has refused to be the moral leader of the country. Things like homosexuality are too “controversial” for most pulpits. It is a forbidden subject. And too many churches that have been willing to address the issue have done so with such a lack of love and compassion as to do more harm than good. To not speak the truth is bad; to not speak the truth in love is worse.

And dare I say that many of our Christian churches, schools, colleges, and universities have become breeding grounds for homosexual behavior. The absence of male leadership is epidemic in the Church–and in the home, for that matter. And by leadership, I do not mean dictatorship. But true, godly, strong, kind, loving male leadership has eroded significantly from twentieth, and now twenty-first, century churches.

The Church is the moral rudder of a nation. The SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” is the result of the Church abandoning its moral leadership. The Church surrendered its spiritual and moral authority to the state. Why should it now be surprised when the state chooses to not recognize a moral authority that the Church, itself, refuses to recognize?

P.S. In honor of Independence Day, we are again offering THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS. This is a giant compilation of over 50 of America’s greatest documents in one volume. THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS cannot be found in stores or anywhere else. And this is a limited printing, so our supply will not last long.

Speaking of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, he has a copy of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, as does former congressman Ron Paul.

So, don’t just shoot off fireworks; give your children and loved ones the documents that birthed the greatest free nation on earth, and let them read the stirring words of our forebears for themselves. Unfortunately, most schools–even private and Christian schools–do not require the reading of these wonderful documents. How much longer before these documents are completely forgotten, or even banned?

Again, this is a limited printing; so order THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS now.

To order THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go here:

The Freedom Documents

And to read a more detailed description of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go here:

A Great Way To Celebrate Independence Day

© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

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

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

GOP Candidates Quickly Return Tainted Donations… What About Hillary?

What do Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Hillary Clinton all have in common? Tainted political contributions.

What do they not have in common? A moral compass when it comes to those contributions.

The suspect in last week’s horrific attack in Charleston, SC, wrote a manifesto on his website which named the Council of Conservative Citizens as his source for first learning of what he termed “brutal black-on-white murders.” This knowledge is believed to have contributed to the twisted worldview which led to his brutal rampage.

Hillary Clinton donations

The leader of the Council of Conservative Citizens is a man by the name of Eric Holt III. Mr. Holt is thought to be a white supremacist and has contributed to the campaigns of both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, among others.

When Cruz’s and Paul’s campaigns learned of Mr. Holt’s connections to the Charleston shooter, they acted swiftly and decisevely in returning the supremacist’s donations.

“Senator Cruz believes that there is no place for racism in society,” a statement from Cruz’s campaign reads. “Upon learning about Mr. Holt’s background and his contributions to the campaign, he immediately instructed that all of those donations be returned.”

Rand Paul’s campaign is also reported to have received contributions amounting to $2,250 from Mr. Holt. RandPAC is donating all of the monies it has received from Mr. Holt to the Mother Emanuel Hope Fund to assist the victims’ families.

This is important, you guys. Two GOP candidates find out they’ve received contributions from a man indirectly related to a horrific crime, and immediately return or redistribute those funds.

Let’s compare that to the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, shall we? As the New York Times pointed out, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria, and Brunei — all of which the State Department has faulted over their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues.

Hillary Clinton saudi arabia moneyYou know… countries where women are regularly abused, honor killings are frequent, and gays are hung… Hillary’s accepted millions of dollars from those countries.

When is Hillary going to return that money? Anybody?

Tonight, the media will tell you (repeatedly) that Dylan Roof, the alleged Charleston shooter, was inspired by a man who’s donated thousands to both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. But don’t expect them to mention the millions Hillary’s taken from countries where women are second class, expendable citizens.

Because that, my friends, would be responsible journalism… and it’s what’s incredibly needed in America today. Our hat’s off to the campaigns of Senators Cruz and Paul. We hope Hillary Clinton will someday follow their examples.

Follow me on Twitter.

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

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

These Presidential Candidates Just Did Something Unbelievable For The Families Of Charleston Shooting Victims

Several Republican presidential candidates will be returning campaign contributions made by a man who runs an organization that allegedly inspired the shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church in Charleston, S.C.

Earl Holt, president of the white supremacist group Council of Conservative Citizens (CoCC), has donated $65,000 to Republican campaigns in recent years, The Guardian reported. The New York Times reveals the connection between Holt and Dylann Roof, who has been charged with the murder of nine people at Emanuel AME and could face the death penalty.

A manifesto that appeared on a website registered to Mr. Roof said that the manifesto’s author had first learned of ‘brutal black-on-white murders’ from the Council of Conservative Citizens’ website.

Donations made by Holt include $8,500 to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; $1,750 to RandPAC, the political action committee of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; and $1,500 to former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. Bloomberg reported $3,000 was donated by Holt to the nascent campaign of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

All of the above candidates, declared or otherwise, plan on returning money they received from Holt.

“RandPAC is donating the funds to the Mother Emanuel Hope Fund to assist the victims’ families,” said Paul spokesman Doug Stafford, according to Bloomberg. Santorum spokesman Matthew Beynon told The Guardian Monday that his boss would be doing the same. “Senator Santorum does not condone or respect racist or hateful comments of any kind. Period. The views the Senator campaigns on are his own and he is focused on uniting America, not dividing he,” Beynon said.

Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Cruz, told Bloomberg that her boss “believes that there is no place for racism in society.”

“Upon learning about Mr. Holt’s background and his contributions to the campaign, he immediately instructed that all of those donations be returned.”

AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Walker, said the governor would be donating the funds to charity, according to Bloomberg.

h/t: Youth for Rand Paul

Do you applaud these candidates? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

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

Rand Paul Hits A Nerve With What He Just Said About How The Justice System Treats Black People

Protesters in Ferguson, Baltimore and other sites around the U.S. have spent several months asserting that police treat blacks differently than whites. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul recently stood out among the Republican field of 2016 presidential candidates by taking a firm position in support of the demonstrators’ stance.

During a stop in Baltimore this week, Paul told an audience the story of 22-year-old Kalief Browder – a black man who recently committed suicide several years after being incarcerated and abused for a crime he did not commit.

“I’ve been telling this story for about a year and a half, two years,” he said, “and it makes me sad now. I thought about not talking about it or doing the story; but I thought that this young man’s memory should help us to try and change things. He died this weekend. He committed suicide.”

Even those guilty of a crime, Paul said, do not deserve the treatment Browder received as an innocent man awaiting trial.

“Even if you’re convicted of a crime,” he said, “in America, for goodness sake, are we going to let people be raped and murdered and pillaged in a prison because they’re convicted? And he wasn’t even convicted.”

His proximity to the protests that followed suspect Freddie Gray’s death while in police custody provided a fitting backdrop for his assertion that minorities are unfairly targeted by a broken justice system.

“Am I saying they did nothing wrong and it’s all racism?” he asked. “No. What I am telling you is that white kids don’t get the same justice.”

Are blacks treated unfairly by cops in America? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

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

Finding Common Ground In The Fight For Privacy

Sen. Rand Paul’s recent effort to force reforms on the National Security Agency’s data collection practices to protect the privacy of the American people has set off a firestorm of anger among the establishment of the Republican Party. From Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), there is a large parcel of the GOP that would eagerly sacrifice liberty for security. There is, however, one major push designed to limit the power of government that has a large base of support within the Republican establishment — the Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad (LEADS) Act.

A bipartisan group of Senators are working diligently to pass the LEADS Act to overturn an extraordinary abuse of power by Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Led by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dean Heller (R-Nevada), and Chris Coons (D-Delaware), these members are trying to establish rules balancing the needs of law enforcement to obtain the contents of electronic communications with privacy protections for citizens in the digital age. Unfortunately, the clock is ticking; and unless Congress acts quickly, only the Supreme Court will be left to restore rights that were taken by the government — if they even take the pending case.

The issue stems from an investigation by the Justice Department against an Irish citizen who stored information on a cloud computing system owned by an Irish company on servers stored on the island nation. If the information requested were a piece of paper instead of a byte of data, the DOJ would be forced, by treaty obligation, to request that the Irish government obtain a warrant on their behalf to obtain the information. Such requests among allies are commonplace and are not much of a hurdle for the government to jump over.

Rather than make such a request, the DOJ subpoenaed Microsoft and demanded they turn over the information because the Irish company is a subsidiary of Microsoft. Microsoft, in an effort to protect the privacy rights of their users, has rightfully refused to comply and filed a lawsuit against the government.

A federal district court in New York ruled for the government, suggesting that as an American company that wholly owns the Irish subsidiary, a simple domestic warrant is enough. Last July, the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court agreed; and in September, Microsoft asked to be held in contempt of the court so it could progress to the Supreme Court.

The ramifications of these decisions are critical for privacy rights, jurisdictional limitations of government power, and the ability of American companies to compete abroad.

Unless overturned by the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice’s argument that most anything stored on the cloud-based computer systems–even by foreign nationals on servers stored outside the United States–falls under their power will stand. Hence, the LEADS Act was introduced.

Support for the LEADs Act provides a perfect opportunity for members of the GOP to demonstrate support for privacy rights while limiting the power of the federal government.

From threatening to indict reporters who refuse to release their sources to Holder’s Department of Justice seizing two months worth of phone records from Associated Press reporters, the Obama administration will go down in history with one of the worst records for domestic civil liberties. The effort to grab control of the cloud computing systems is just the latest chapter in a sad era of the widespread violation of American constitutional liberties.

This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue with profound implications for the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. No matter who is in power, this legislation is a great way to clarify how the United States government wants Americans’ phone records to be treated by foreign nations. The natural right of privacy, and the right to police against law-breaking, are two interests that can be balanced in a way that makes sense and protects all Americans.

Privacy from government intrusion should be a conservative principle. Too many members of the GOP are willing to trust their privacy rights to bureaucrats in the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI. The LEADs Act is a small step in the right direction and creates a unique opportunity for the Republican Party to help restore some of the rights that have been trampled on by big government.

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

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