What The ‘Gay Marriage’ Debate Is Really About

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

It’s called Pandora’s Box.

And the Supreme Court just opened it.

Did you actually think the debate over “gay marriage” was about marriage? Have you really come to believe that this cultural kerfuffle has anything to do with “civil rights” or “equality”? Have you bought into the popular premise that this is a legitimate discussion on federalism – that it’s a reasonable disagreement over whether the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause requires that newfangled “gay marriage,” something rooted in same-sex sodomy, a deviant and disease-prone behavior our Constitution’s framers officially declared “the infamous crime against nature,” be made law of the land?

A lot of people have, so don’t feel bad. A lot of reasonable, well-meaning, and even, at times, intelligent people have taken the bait.

But that’s all window dressing. It’s superficial. It’s collateral. It’s chaff, a diversion, a squirrel. Don’t chase it.

At its core, this increasingly heated fight over “gay marriage” is about two diametrically opposed and profoundly incompatible views of reality (or lack thereof). It’s the modern manifestation of a millennia-old clash between worldviews. This ugly cultural conflict is, in reality, neither legal nor political in nature, but, rather, is fundamentally a philosophical debate. Ultimately, it derives from, and is illustrative of, deep-seated spiritual warfare. Quite simply, the clash over “gay marriage” is emblematic of the larger, and much older, clash between good and evil.

And it’s reaching critical mass.

On the one hand, on the natural marriage side, we have a worldview that recognizes absolute truth – that acknowledges the fixed moral and natural law, authored and enforced from time immemorial by the sovereign and loving Creator of the universe. This same Creator, incidentally, just happened to design and define the very institution over which we quarrel. Those with this worldview concede that every man, woman, and child is accountable to this sovereign Creator and will, one day, stand before Him to face final judgment for what they did or did not do during their infinitesimally short-lived stint here on earth.

This, though not a comprehensive representation, is the biblical worldview.

On the other hand, on the unnatural marriage side (or the “marriage equality” side as these self-styled “progressives” euphemistically prefer), we have a worldview that denies absolute truth. It imagines there are no fixed lines of demarcation between right and wrong – that morality and reality is entirely relative and, therefore, the very notions of good and evil, right and wrong, and sin and repentance are but false and limiting constructs concocted in the narrow minds of a dull bevy of sheepherders some thousands of years ago.

Since those with this worldview either deny God’s very existence altogether or, alternatively, believe that some version of god, like marriage, can be defined, or redefined, in the mind of the beholder, they claim accountability to no one (except goddess political correctness) and, thus, declare reality to be that which they, the secular-”progressive” intelligentsia, proclaim it to be (e.g., that manmade, credulity-straining, reality-warping, and oxymoronic counterfeit called “same-sex marriage”).

Pages: 1 2

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Oligarchy In America-Tyranny Of The Federal Judiciary

3634449610_d9fd981727_b

Two key decisions rendered by the Federal Judiciary this week severely challenge not only the foundational institutions of our society, but the fundamental operation of our republic.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced this week that it opted to not hear appeals by five states regarding their traditional marriage laws. Utah, Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma all had laws on the books defining marriage as a contractual institution including a man and a woman that had been appealed to the Supreme Court from lower courts. The net effect is that judicial decisions at lower levels against those state laws will now stand, opening the way for same-sex marriages in those states.

The Supreme Court’s rationale to not hear the cases may well have been portended by Justice Antonin Scalia last month in Bozeman, MT, when he said, “It’s not up to the courts to invent new minorities that get special protections that are not subject to the usual rule that you have to get the majority to agree with it.”

Even more disconcerting is the decision by three judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Idaho and Nevada’s laws supporting traditional marriage. A three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit, consisting of Judges Stephen Reinhardt, a Carter appointee from Los Angeles, Ronald M Gould, a Clinton appointee from Seattle, and Marsha S. Berzon, a Clinton appointee from San Francisco, struck down state laws reaffirming marriage between a man and a woman. Since the Supreme Court will not hear states’ appeals on the issue, same-sex marriage is a fait accompli, not only for Idaho and Nevada, but inevitably in all 50 states.

Our federal judiciary has become, arguably and disturbingly, an oligarchy. When they rule on the “constitutionality” of an issue, it is assumed to be the final say in whether a vote of Congress or the vote of the people via referendum or initiative is legitimized or annulled. This is not how the Supreme Court and its substrata of appellate courts were intended to operate, nor is it de facto the way it should be.

The federal judiciary, as it has evolved, has unchecked and unlimited power over the nation by either of the other branches–the executive or the legislative–or even the people. Its members are not accountable to the citizenry, since most of their appointments are for life, and they cannot be removed from the bench by a vote of the people they purportedly serve. Their ruminations and the results of their decisions are insular, and they often trump the will of the people with regard to key social issues. Their decisions are presumed to be final, even though they may be at odds with the democratic majority of our citizens.

Herein lies the fundamental problem about the present construct of our federal judiciary as it has evolved since the founding. If, as stated in the 10th Amendment, all “rights and powers” not specifically itemized in the Constitution are held by the people collectively or by the states, what right does a court have to negate the will of the people? As it relates especially to key cultural issues like abortion, public religious displays, and definitions of marriage, should not the final court be the court of public opinion, rather than an oligarchy of judges insulated from, and not accountable to, the citizenry? In most of these cases, state courts have ruled, and appeals are then made to the federal judiciary.

Pages: 1 2

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Mike Huckabee Has A Strong Message For Republicans

Mike Huckabee

In his opening monologue this weekend, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee told fellow Republicans to “grow a spine” when it comes to judicial activism.  Huckabee was referencing the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear petitions from five states where bans on same-sex marriage was overturned in the lower courts, including Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

On Sunday, a federal judge overturned a same-sex marriage ban in Alaska, a law that had been in place since 1998.  It had been the first law of its kind, according to CNN.

Huckabee stressed that his position on same-sex marriage is the same position President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden had until two years ago–“that it was inconsistent with nature and nature’s law.”

“I wonder sometimes, do we still teach civics in school? Are Americans, even elected officials, lawyers, and judges utterly ignorant about the structure of our government and how it functions?

“Well can I assume everyone knows that we’ve got three branches of government, and each are equal to the other? The founders took extraordinary measures to prevent too much power being grabbed by one person or group. The system they created, sometimes cumbersome; but it’s based on the longest used Constitution in human history.

“The Congress controls the purse or the money, the Executive branch controls the sword, and the Judicial branch watches over and offers opinions as to the Constitutional compliance of the other two.

“My friend Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel and Dean at the Liberty University School of Law points out in his outstanding book called Judicial Tyranny, and he says this and I quote: ‘The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the liberties of the minority against the majority. However, our constitutional makeup does not give the minority veto rights over the majority.  The major…political and social questions of our day has by constitutional design been given to the majority through the legislative process. Continually taking away the right of the majority to shape their culture will ultimately result in rebellion. To take away the right of the people to debate the question leads to an oligarchy, or government of the few, and it results in tyranny.’

“Well this week, the Supreme Court declined to take up cases from the court of appeals regarding same-sex marriage in a number of states where the people had already voted to affirm natural law marriage of a man and a woman. In these states, typically, a single robed judge decided that his opinion mattered more than the collective votes of the people themselves.

“The Supreme Court refused to hear these cases, despite the confusion that exists due to its own Windsor decision last year which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. Several governors and other elected officials reacted by saying, ‘Well, that’s it. That’s the final word.’ Horse apples. The Supreme Court is not the supreme being. Yes, it’s the highest court within one of the three branches of government, but it isn’t superior to the other two.

Pages: 1 2

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

ALERT: What The Supreme Court Just Did About Same-Sex Marriage Could Ignite Wide Outrage

gay marriage

No doubt advocates and opponents of same-sex marriage will both be disappointed and frustrated…some will likely be outraged. The Supreme Court has passed up its first opportunity to re-enter the national debate on the contentious issue, putting off a decision on whether to hear any new cases on constitutional grounds.

USA Today reports that the justices have delayed taking any action on petitions from five states where a same-sex-marriage ban is in dispute:

The justices are considering state bans on same-sex marriage in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin that have been overturned in lower courts. They must decide whether to hear any of those cases or let the latest court rulings stand, which would legalize gay marriage in 11 additional states.

If the court ultimately agrees to hear one or more cases, oral arguments would be held early in 2015 and a ruling rendered before the court adjourns in June. It is unlikely that the justices will decide before their next conference on Oct. 10.

Nationallawjournal.com helps to put the high court’s non-action into perspective:

The justices on Thursday issued their first orders list before the official start of the new term on Oct. 6. That list, which contained cases that they plan to decide, followed their private conference on Monday in which they culled through several thousand petitions filed during the summer.

Although conventional wisdom says the court will take up the same-sex marriage question this term, some court scholars and litigators had suggested the court would not act on the petitions during its first conference.

As of now, nineteen states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage, and the high court ruled last year that the federal government cannot deny benefits to such couples. It sidestepped the remaining state laws by taking no position on the merits of California’s ban, which had been struck down by lower federal courts.

Again, from the usatoday.com report on the Supreme Court’s ongoing involvement in one of the biggest social, cultural, political, legal and religious issues of our time:

Since those decisions were handed down, six additional states have legalized gay marriage, and federal and state judges in 14 more states have overturned marriage bans. All those rulings have been put on hold during the appeals process, leaving 31 bans in place.

According to an article in The Washington Post, one Justice hinted that the high court will, in fact, soon grapple once again with the issue:

At an appearance in Colorado Wednesday, Justice Antonin Scalia was asked when the court would take up the same-sex marriage issue. According to the Associated Press, Scalia quipped, “I know when, but I’m not going to tell you.” When the crowd of about 1,500 laughed, Scalia added, “Soon! Soon!”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder?

Photo credit: US Embassy (Flickr)

After 5 1/2 bumpy years of controversial service, the besieged but bolstered attorney general, Eric Holder, resigned. But is this close friend and confidant of President Barack Obama really stepping down for some benign reason at a critical time for our country, or is there a sinister and strategic plan behind it all?

First, it’s far more than a coincidence that the United States’ chief lawyer is leaving office with more unanswered questions about crucial life-and-death national dilemmas than any previous attorney general. Though most have been accused of sitting on issues, none has been so assailed as Holder for personally stonewalling investigations, covering up government involvement, and refusing to deal with politically explosive controversies. Holder has not prosecuted such monumental and rights-infringing crimes as the Fast and Furious debacle; the Benghazi, Libya, tragedy; National Security Agency wiretappings; press infringements; drone attacks on U.S. citizens; and the Internal Revenue Service scandal.

The Bronx, New York-born 63-year-old Holder proudly boasted that he had “taken steps to protect the environment”; taken swift action in Ferguson, Missouri; and even opened a broad probe into the police department in Ferguson. However, he — like our president and even Secretary of State John Kerry — hasn’t said a single word over the past six months about Marine reservist Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi’s being wrongly imprisoned in Mexico.

Eric Holder Might Not Say A Word About Sgt. Tahmooressi, But There’s Nothing Stopping You From Signing This Petition To Demand His Release!

Sadly, it has been recently reported that Tahmooressi, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, is “highly despondent” because of the drastic deterioration of his mental health. And still, Holder refuses to speak up on behalf of this suffering, imprisoned American patriot.

Can you say resignation of denial and avoidance?

If Obama invoked executive privilege when Holder sat before Congress to protect him from his role in Fast and Furious, who’s to say he isn’t protecting him again — or vice versa — through Holder’s resignation? What better way to avoid the line of fire than to move completely out of the way? And what if Obama and Holder are not only protecting themselves from some past public sin through his resignation but also prepping Holder for some future position by his absence from the public stage?

That’s exactly what Rush Limbaugh proposed this past week. He explained the scary scenario this way:

“After you perform your six years of government service, you then retire to the private sector and get paid off for it. People hire you who are grateful for what you did, or you go back to your law firm, where you are a rainmaker, don’t even have to do any work.

“They put your name on the letterhead, on the door, and you attract clients and get a percentage of what walks in the door. There is any number of ways this can happen. But there’s also another possibility regarding Eric Holder. I just want you to prepare yourself. It may happen. We still have two years to go.

Pages: 1 2

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom