Same-Sex Marriage: An Open Letter to Justice Kennedy

Frank - Moses

Frank - Moses

Dear Justice Kennedy: #SCOTUS

Dr. Paul Kengor, professor of political science, says, “Most people who support same-sex ‘marriage,’ including many gays, do so for benevolent reasons. They believe that it is an issue of ‘equality’ and a new ‘freedom for a group of people.’” They are not haters, nor crazy, and they have no desire to destroy the family.

Likewise, most who support traditional marriage do so for religious reasons or their understanding of natural law. They are not haters, or bigots, or crazy, or or homophobes.

But there are just a few things you might not know about “the historical and ideological forces” behind this idea for same-sex “marriage.” I didn’t know them until I read Dr. Kengor’s new book Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left has Sabotaged Family and Marriage.

The battle over marriage did not start in the 1960’s. It has been going on for two hundred years since Robert Owen and John Humphrey Noyes started socialistic communities in New Harmony, Indiana in 1825 and Oneida, New York in 1848, respectively. Both utopias had communal marriages.

The struggle really ramped up with Karl Marx and Frederick Engels who wrote in the Communist Manifesto in 1848 for the “abolition of the family!” The Soviet Union implemented this idea starting in 1917 with brutal force by allowing easy divorces with just the sending of a postcard to the government officials, widespread abortions, and ripping children from their families to live in education communes. Fifty years before some of this started in the US with no-fault divorce and Roe v Wade.

Dr. Kengor says, “Communism is a totalitarian ideology. It wants to fundamentally change human nature. It is a spiritual struggle and Communism wants to destroy the things that stand in the way of people’s loyalty to the state and the collective.” The spiritual things. “That’s why its greatest foes are God, religion, and marriage,” said Dr. Kengor in a EWTN radio interview on the Kresta in the Afternoon show, June 1, 2015. Listen here (Hour 2).

“It’s also the fundamental thing that people will die for,” said Al Kresta. “You will die for your God, and you will die for your family—for your children, and for your spouse.”

The Soviets emphasized destroying their opponents economically, but Communism was not winning this battle because it couldn’t deliver economically. Capitalism always won. A group of cultural Marxists living in Germany in the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s saw this and decided on trying to win the battle with “Culture, culture, culture. Higher Ed, higher Ed, higher Ed. And sex. Now we can bring these ideas into the West to take down the West, they said. We’ll saturate the culture with a miasma of sex,” said Dr. Kengor.

Because they were Jewish they had to flee Germany when Hitler came into power. With the help of a grant by the Rockefeller Foundation most of them were welcomed at Columbia University in NYC where they had a tremendous effect on American education and culture through the Columbia Teachers college.

These ideas were essential to the New Left 60’s radicals, such as Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Mark Rudd and Tom Hayden. One of their slogans was “destroy monogamy.”

Why? Because marriage is the foundation of society. “Every threat to marriage is a threat to society. The future of society…flows through the family,” said Pope Francis on January 16, 2015.

The Left’s goal has always been “to transform society.”

This theme was essential to Progressives. “They want to change society. What is their goal, what is their end? They never say because they themselves don’t know. The only thing you can say about them is that they are always progressing, always evolving, always changing” says Dr. Kengor.

President Obama’s campaign slogan was “hope and change.” He said in a campaign speech in 2008 that he wanted to ”fundamentally transform America.”

And now with the quest to legalize same-sex “marriage” Progressives have discovered a new political weapon they can use. Just a few years ago both President Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton proclaimed their support of the traditional family. What made them change? They saw an issue that was a winner politically.

Now even the Communists have latched onto this as a weapon, and besides, Kengor says, it is a “great club to hammer religion with and Christianity in particular, and their most reviled, hated and longtime enemy the Catholic Church.”

Communism has long been a foe of homosexuality, but with this support that mainstream Americans have for this issue, the Communist Party USA and the publication People’s World is now praising this new cause. In Fidel Castro’s Cuba his niece Mariela Castro, a devout spokeswoman for the government, openly marched in a gay parade recently. She said her uncle is very sympathetic to the gay cause now.

“The Communists are beside themselves with a mix of befuddlement and joy that they now have Mr. and Mrs. Mainstream American on their side…They could have never, ever thought they could receive this gift from God, well, they don’t believe in God, but this gift from somewhere, somewhere much lower,” Dr. Kengor says. “If Communists weren’t atheists they’d be shouting hallelujah.”

“[T]he vast majority of today’s proponents of same-sex marriage have friendly motives. Their goal is not to tear down but to ‘expand’ marriage to a new form of spousal partner. They do this with the intent of providing a new ‘freedom’ and ‘right’ to a new group of people. I get that. Unfortunately, there’s so much that they are not getting…

“…Today’s advocates of same-sex marriage need to be aware of the quite insidious deeper and darker historical-ideological forces they are unwittingly serving.” Read here.

I just thought you’d like to know. I certainly didn’t know all of these things.

My prayers for all of you.

Respectfully,
Jamey Brown

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on google
Google+
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on pinterest
Pinterest

56 thoughts on “Same-Sex Marriage: An Open Letter to Justice Kennedy”

  1. Jamey, keep up the great evangelization for the Lord! I love the line about how your Blog proceeds finance your dream 🙂

    1. Thank you kindly, Phil from Ohio. Sometimes we can win people with humor. You make me think of this quote, “Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” –Winston Churchill, October 29, 1941, in the dark days of WWII.

  2. If it were true that most people support same-sex marriage for a benevolent reasons, then it would follow that same-sex sexual acts are respectful of the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person. No doubt, reordering human persons according to sexual desire/inclination/orientation, which sexually objectifies the human person, is consistent with atheistic materialism, and not respectful of our Dignity as sons and daughters.

  3. It may be charitable to assume that if Justice Kennedy rules wrongly on this matter, it is because there was some crucial piece of information he has never heard, but I’m afraid such an assumption is hopelessly naive. We can exhort, but there is little need to inform, and I am very much of the opinion that regardless of what we do, he made up his mind long ago.

    1. I have hope because the mysterious Holy Spirit is working in everything. I have seen and read how the smallest actions have changed hearts. I have emailed this letter to Justice Kennedy. G.K. Chesterton says that in every small thing there is a type of the eternal. Al Kresta says, “Ideas have consequences.”

    2. Well, maybe St. Monica, though tears and prayer, could have an effect. As for letters, if Justice Kennedy is not swayed by the letters of St. Paul, with all due respect how can you expect him to be swayed by a letter from Jamey Brown?

    3. “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” (Philippians 4:13) “…but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26) On tonight’s EWTN News Nightly there is a segment about an open letter co-authored by Deacon Keith Fournier of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia entitled Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. Fifty thousand have signed it already including former Sen. Rick Santorum and former Gov. Mike Huckabee. Apparently many, many have hope. Our readers can sign it here: https://www.google.com/search?q=Pledge+in+Solidarity+to+Defend+Marriage.&rlz=1C1GGGE___US607US607&oq=Pledge+in+Solidarity+to+Defend+Marriage.&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65j69i60.2576393j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

      Our readers can also email Justice Kennedy or the other Justices at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contact_pio.aspx

    4. Well, may God grant you success. Or. should He choose not to, may God give us the strength to withstand what comes.

    5. Thanks, Howard. No matter what the Court decides we will persevere. As Deacon Fournier said on EWTN tonight, “No matter what the Court decides, marriage will still be between one man and one woman.”

      Just like abortion, the good Pro Life people are still fighting for every inch. Yes, let’s stay strong, brother.

    6. Oh, the Church will persevere, and of course human nature will be unchanged. Still, you and I should not be complacent. Christianity was essentially eradicated from Japan, with the Kakure Kirishitan becoming so confused it was necessary to re-baptize them. We are not better or dearer to God than the Japanese; it could happen to us. That applies both in general and to the two of us in particular! Let us pray fervently that it does not.

    7. I am right with you–it could happen here. Things could spin out of control very quickly. Yes prayer, prayer and doing whatever we can. Catholics started out as a persecuted minority in the early days of this country. It looks like we be headed back there. Let’s hope we don’t make the mistake of assimilation that they did.

  4. Kengor, the distinguished professor from Grove State College. If you read scholarly reviews of his books you will note a common thread of literary criticism….disinformation. He has an abundance of footnote and attributions, however when you check them they oft do not say what he says they say. Kengor sees a card carrying Communist behind every tree and in the fold of every president since his idol: Reagan. The communes were not about communism but rather about peace and free love. Gay rights and gay marriage are about equality of all people, hardly a communist or Marxist value. The only verifiable truth is that the Nazis and the Communists hated gays.

    Now, about the SCOTUS….this is not an issue before the justices which deals with religion, with sociology, with competing economic theories or anyone’s personal beliefs it deals with the Constitution which guarantees equal protection for all citizens under the law. The fundamental question is does the Constitution guarantee equal rights to gays who wish to marry….communism, the downfall of society, religious freedom, etc are all red herrings. Are all people guaranteed the same rights under the color of law. Kengor is another run of the mill right wing political scientist, not a prominent constitutional lawyer by any stretch of the imagination.

    1. Phil, Paul Kengor, PhD, has appeared on MSNBC, C-SPAN, NPR, BBC, and Fox News Channel. He is author of over a dozen books, including several bestsellers. Kengor is an internationally recognized authority on the presidency, the Cold War, and communism, with extensive experience in Soviet archival research, particularly the Comintern Archives on Communist Party USA.

      Dr. Kengor’s articles have appeared in numerous publications: the New York Times, USA Today, CNN.com, FoxNews.com, The Washington Post, American Spectator, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, Christianity Today, World, National Catholic Register, Crisis, Jewish Press, Jewish World Review, and has been an editor or contributed chapters to books published by Harvard University Press, Columbia University Press, Oxford University Press, and other academic houses.

      He received his doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public and International He holds an honorary doctorate from Franciscan University (Steubenville, Ohio).

      As for the communes being communist or not, why else would they call them communes? Dr. Kengor writes: “Robert Owen certainly left his collectivist footprint. In his “Declaration of Mental Independence” which was, in effect, an anti-Declaration of Independence he said “that man up to this hour has been in all parts of the earth a slave to a Trinity of the most monstrous evils that could be.” What were these monstrosities? “I refer to private property, absurd and irrational systems of religion and marriage.”

      Children were removed from parents into separate parts of the collective for proper “education.”

      Dan J. Flynn, in his history of the American left, rightly put it, “Owen declared war on marriage, private property, and the family.”

      Flynn argues that Robert Owen “would feel more at home” today in a world of gay marriage, easy divorce, and public squares and courthouses stripped of manger scenes and the Ten Commandments.”

      I don’t know if you read the article but it says, “the Communist Party USA and the publication People’s World [the successor of The Daily Worker] is now praising this new cause. In Fidel Castro’s Cuba his niece Mariela Castro, a devout spokeswoman for the government, openly marched in a gay parade recently. She said her uncle is very sympathetic to the gay cause now.”

      A welcome ally in Communism’s 200 year old effort to destroy the family.

    2. You list every ultra-right channel, in fact research of viewers of FOX indicate they are of the lowest intelligence of any viewers. Having a Ph.D. is not indcative of much. A commune is a collective not a communist tribe.

      MOST IMPORTANT, Like I said gay rights and gay marriage are CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES period. They should be decided only on a constitutional basis period. The preamble to the constitution is WE THE PEOPLE and we by majority favor gay rights, freedom from discrimination, gay marriage…so do a majority of self identified Catholics. We the people….

      Like I said he is known for distortion and disinformation:

      http://kaleokualoha2878577.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/11/5809998-paul-kengors-disinformation

      Jamey, a person with a moderate position would have been a better choice than one who sees a Communist plot in everything…

    3. Phil, the source you used is subtitled “Son of Frank Marshall Davis,” the card carrying Communist who was President Obama’s “spiritual advisory” (the President’s own words) as a youth. Davis was under surveillance by the FBI as an enemy of America. Not an objective source.

      MSNBC, NPR, BBC, Harvard, Columbia, and Oxford are right wing? I don’t think you’re reading my replies. You can say that what you think is true, but that doesn’t make it true. Some things can be objectively checked out.

      Marriage laws in this country have been made by the states since its conception. The federal government has not been involved. It’s also a matter of tradition, religious beliefs, and natural law: in nature, male and female go together. They are complimentary.

    4. Jamey, we could discuss the author’s credentials ad nauseam and get no where, so let’s deal with the real issue at hand. I’m not a fan of conspiracy theory. Giving someone air time does not mean what they say has value.

      You state that marriage laws in the US are made by states and they are a matter of tradition, religious belief and natural law. When states make laws that are discriminatory or deny all citizens equal rights, they are unconstitutional. Louisiana could make a state law that prohibited gay marriage; if it’s unconstitutional it’s illegal.

      Religion, tradition and natural law were used to justify laws against sodomy. Is that a state right based on any of your three suppositions? Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. In the 6–3 ruling the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. The same holds true for Roe v Wade. The right to privacy and the equal protections clauses of the Constitution trumped state “rights.” The same thing is happening with gay marriage….the central issue is CONSTITUTIONALITY of a states law, If it violates the constitution, it is illegal and I suspect gay marriage will go the same way.

      I need not remind you of the preamble to the Constitution:We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      We the people means government of the people, by the people and for the people. Neither god, nor natural law, nor tradition are elements of the constitution. God is never mentioned in the Constitution. The SCOTUS decision must be based upon the words of the Constitution which is the governing document of the USA.

    5. Phil, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that stipulates that two men or two woman have the “right” to marry, unless the courts decide to impose this new, fanciful interpretation onto the country. One must bend prior constitutional interpretation beyond reason in order to justify the notion that marriage between two men or two women is a constitutional “right.” All the contentious polemics about discrimination, equal “rights,” privacy, or the Equal Protection Clause won’t ultimately justify or prove it. All that you justify with regards to the “right” to marry is being read into the constitution, not read out of the Constitution. But, the courts have the power to do whatever they will, and they will do what they will to do. You may ultimately have the power to impose it, but that doesn’t make it true.

      And it is ironic that you reference “We the people,” in light of the fact that the entire same-sex marriage movement was primarily given political impetus by the intervention of courts, not the democratic process.

    6. Phil, thanks for your response. I suspect, as in the recent Irish vote, that only about 35% of people actively favor gay marriage, about 25% actively oppose it, while about 40% don’t particularly care one way or the other. Poll results depend on how questions are asked, even so far as sequence of questions and options given for answers. Advocacy groups, and some elements of the media, preferential poll all the time, in both directions, knowing how to structure the poll to increase the likelihood of getting the desired answer. Many people give the answer that they think the pollster wants to hear, not wanting to appear to go against the current trends.

      For many people, marriage, both in attitude and practice, is no longer a particular priority. A 2010 Pew study recently found that 44% of 18-29 year olds, and 41% of 30-49 year olds, believe that marriage is becoming obsolete. This would have been unthinkable just 20 or 30 years ago, just as SSM would have been unthinkable. The increase of acceptance of SSM is a reflection of the decline in attitudes and practices of marriage that have occurred in the West over the last 50 or so years.

      As to marriage being a “right,” it is the common language of the advocates for SSM, not so much the legal basis, as in “you can’t discriminate against me, I have a constitutional right to marry.”

      In the end, in our country of about 325 million people, 5 or more Supreme Court justices may very well conclusively decide this issue for us all. That is the antithesis of self-government by “We the People,” and should give us all pause about trying to settle contentious social/culture issues by judicial fiat. Whatever the polls say now, and that is somewhat contentious, there is no doubt that this issue gained traction through judicial initiative, along with very positive support and advocacy by almost all of our culture’s prominent gate keepers. That is what the activists wanted; that is what the activists got.

      As with Roe v. Wade, judicial decree will not resolve this contentious social issue.

    7. Very good points, Tom. You should write an article on this. There might still be time to change one mind.

    8. jamey, thanks for your response. While I have never had the opportunity to write an article, or has it actually occurred to me to do so, I was once much more active in com-boxes on multiple websites, hoping to influence the discussion. I still comment occasionally, but have recently become more dispirited that it has any meaningful impact. I don’t like admitting this, but the power of the prevailing culture is much more than any one person can influence.

      If we have lost this battle, I don’t think it is because we have lost the ability to persuade. We have lost this battle because marriage is becoming lost, in a long-term decline that has made all this confusion possible. I don’t know how to correct for that. It has taken our culture a long time to get into this mess; if it is possible, it will take our culture a long time to get out of it.

      Thanks for keeping at it!

    9. Thanks, Tom, for your articulate comments. I too share in your disappointments with our culture. But I always have hope because the Lord is always working in us and sometimes the littlest positive thing can have a big result. You could post a comment or send a letter to the editor and someone might read it and share it or say something to someone else who passes it on and it could reach someone with influence.

      I emailed this article to Justice Kennedy and someone might read it and pass it on to him or say something to him. I also posted it on FB and on my blog. You might send what you wrote to our publication. We’re always looking for new voices. Or if you’re not Catholic send it elsewhere.

      You can start a blog for free and what you post there comes up on the Google search. You have a sound and learned look at this subject and we need you. And keep commenting.

    10. jamey, you’re right, we must never give up hope, and I haven’t and I won’t.

      Like you, I am a adult initiate into the Church, for me in 2009. I grew up in an unchurched home, but in a culture that was built around the Christian faith, whether as a society we openly acknowledged it, or even knew it, or not. That’s what it was. Thankfully, I was never discouraged from having an open mind.

      We are losing something significant as the culture drifts away from its religious foundation and I lament its passing. But I have hope that we will find our way back.

      Thanks for the encouragement and I’ll keep posting, here and elsewhere.

    11. That’s great to hear, Tom. Now that’s good news!
      Yes, we are losing so much—our greatest treasures. But we have 2 secret weapons that the other side knows nothing about: sacrifice and prayer. They are too selfish to use either. Pope Saint John Paul II said, “Prayer united with sacrifice is the most powerful weapon in the history of mankind.”

      We’ve read the Book and we know how it ends: Jesus wins, the Culture of Death loses. So let’s keep up the good fight.

    12. Jamey, you are really wonderful, God Bless you! I just love what you say. Your words are like water in the desert!

    13. Tom, thank God you will hang in there, I have felt the way you felt so many times and it’s very painful! Offer it up to God as a sacrifice, I do. And I try to remember the one most important thing- Jesus suffered knowing all of this and so will we, he warned us! BUT remember If God is for us, who can be against us? 🙂 God bless you!

    14. Wait … are you including MSNBC as an “ultra-right wing channel”? If so, do you have an example of a channel that carries news that is not “ultra-right wing”?

  5. Jamey, you nailed it!! ” but this gift from somewhere, somewhere much lower..” Yes, much lower. It is Satan’s desire to rule the world, take away our real gift of freewill and reason and turn society into hell. He has such a short time to play “god” before he is finally chained and silenced. Great letter!

    1. Thank you. Fr. George Rutler says that persecution is good for the Church, it helps the virtues to strengthen. Let’s stay strong in this fight against the Culture of Death.

    2. I do too. I think he is the very best of today’s writers. His new book “Hints of Heaven: The Parables of Christ and What They Mean for You” is just staggering in its insight into our good Lord and into ourselves.

    3. Do not confuse the Jeffersonian “wall of separation of church and state” and the “equal protection of the constitution” with a persecution of the Church. Fundamental disagreement is not persecution … let go of the conspiracy theory. Every decision of SCOTUS which is not consistent with Catholic principles is not persecution. This is the USA….it is not a Christian or Catholic state.

    4. Phil, Jefferson said in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
      Separation of Church and State was to keep government OUT of religion.

      Jefferson got many of his ideas for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution from Robert Bellarmine a Catholic cardinal such as the 3 branches of government and “In the field of church-state relations, he took a position based on principles now regarded as fundamentally democratic – authority originates with God, but is vested in the people, who entrust it to fit rulers.”

      Bellarmine’s book on government was found on Jefferson’s nightstand with many comments he had written in the margins.

      This country was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles and morals such as the dignity of man, the rights of man and the freedom of man. As Chesterton said, “It is the only nation founded on a creed.”

    5. (1) a wall of separation keeps government out of religion and religion out of government

      (2) The US was not a Christian nation: The Treaty of Tripoli ratified by the Senate and signed by John Adams

      Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

      (3) Jefferson on religion, especially Christianity”

      If anything can clear of the misconceptions of Jeffersonian history, it can come best from the author himself. Although Jefferson had a complex view of religion, too vast for this presentation, the following quotes provide a glimpse of how Thomas Jefferson viewed the corruptions of Christianity and religion.

      Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

      -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

      But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

      -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

      What is it men cannot be made to believe!

      -Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)

      Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

      -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

      (4)There exists nothing in the Declaration of Independence about Christianity

      (5) Jefferson rewrote the Bible to reflect his guiding principles

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/jefferson.html

      (6) Same sex marriage is not a breach of the Jeffersonian principle, in fact it re-inforces it. Same sex marriage is a CIVIL concept giving citizens certain rights and legitimating their relationship. Matrimony is a sacramental marriage, a religious union between two people. In Catholic practice it is limited to a man and woman with other conditions (which I believe are ridiculous. like need for divorced to get annulments) even though Jesus said “whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9, emphasis added; cf. Matt. 5:31–32.) He made the prohibition against divorce to be excepted in cases of adultery, but the Church somehow forgot he said that.

      No part of same sex marriage would compel priests to marry gays, to allow the uses of Churches for gay marriage ceremonies, to force the Church to acknowledge civil marriage as a religious union. Civil gay marriage, which a majority of “we the people” and even self-identified Catholics support, does not breach the wall of separation. The Church should not try to put a one way door in that wall. Either the wall has a door which swings both ways or there is no door.
      I have no problem with the position of the Catholic Church opposing gay marriage as long as that opposition is aimed at members of its belief system. There are other systems of belief, as valid and sacred as the RCC which exist side by side in the US. Other Christian sects do not try to impose their acceptance of gay marriages on the Catholic Church. Amen!

    6. Government is increasingly encroaching on religion: trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to supply abortion inducing drugs to its employees. Taking prayer out of public schools when worldwide the Catholic Church started the first universities and the university system.

      Treaty of Tripoli: “Others dismiss the line completely, the result of translation error or paraphrasing, or prefer to see the preamble as a throw-away line, meant to assuage the Dey of Tripoli.” Anyway, the treaty was broken in a few years when Tripoli attacked us we fought back.
      http://www.usconstitution.net/tripoli.html

      Here’s how John Adams really thought about it:

      The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.– John Adams

      The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.– John Adams

      The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.– John Adams

      Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.– John Adams

      Jefferson: “They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

      Bellarmine, from your own citation: “This power is, indeed, from God, but vested in a particular ruler by the counsel and election of men”

      The Bible quote you gave was an incorrect translation of the Greek. The correct quote is “Unless the marriage is unlawful.” Matthew 5:31-32, and Mt.9:19 “the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lv 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort (sister-in-law, uncle, etc.) were regarded as incest (porneia),” http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/5:31

      What does this have to do with anything, unless you’re saying that marriage should be allowed between brother and sister, parent and child? And how many can get married: two, three, five or more? This is the slippery slope this new law could open up.

      And you say that churches and pastors wouldn’t be forced to conduct same-sex “marriages”? Judge Scalia said at the hearing, “If this became a Constitutional right I don’t see how you could allow a minister to say ‘I will only marry a man and a woman, I will not marry two men?”

    7. Jamey, I appreciate the honest dialogue though we disagree on most points and interpretations of scripture, translation and our elders intentions. That’s ok. We’ll just have to wait until SCOTUS decides, until then….peace. I’m sure that neither of our arguments will weigh heavily in their decision which I am sure is already made.

    8. Thanks, Phil, you always debate like a gentleman. It doesn’t look like our discussions will change each others’ minds. And you’re right, the decision might already be made…I had a severely disabled sister. She’s gone on to heaven now and she’s running and jumping like I always prayed for. Looks like that prayer was finally answered. I hope to one day see her again. That’s what I like about religion, it gives you hope for eternity. I’ll pray for you and your family.
      Here’s a short satirical bit that I wrote about the Supreme Court that I hope makes you laugh. Now remember, it’s satire:

      Supreme Court’s Top Ten Reasons for Approving Same-Sex “Marriage”

      Now that comedian David Letterman has retired, people are hungering for his nightly Top Ten Lists. Well, at least me and my neighbor Gladys are. Your humble correspondent will try to fill that need with this feeble attempt:

      Supreme Court’s Top Ten Reasons for Approving Same-Sex “Marriage”

      10. If the young people say it’s cool, then the Supreme Court says it’s cool.

      9. If it makes Christians mad, then that’s a sure sign for us to be for it.

      8. Why should gays be denied marriage, divorce, property settlements, and custody battles that other Americans have?

      7. Give ‘em a few years of marriage and they’ll be begging us to end it.

      6. What the hey? Let’s try it for a few decades and see if it works? By then there probably won’t even be a United States any more.

      5. In America you can be whatever you want to be: a different sex, an animal, a tree, a turnip. Just ask us, we’ll approve it.

      4. Oh, come on, kids don’t need their biological parents. The state can take care of them. It’s done such a fine job already.

      3. Kids? Nobody has kids anymore. If you really want one, you can just cook one up in a laboratory dish.

      2. If one million Irish folks say it’s okay, then that’s proof enough for us.

      1. We want to be “liked” on Facebook.

      Now Letterman has gone on to bigger and brighter things. I think he should be a judge on a network talent contest called So You Think You Can Be Snide?

      But I think the main reason the Supreme Court could give in favor of same-sex “marriage” is: “We like to shake things up. Look at our legalization of all abortions, removing prayer from public schools, and removing the Ten Commandments from court houses.”

    9. The government has not and cannot take prayer out of the public schools. Students (and teachers and administrators) are free to pray whenever they have a free moment. What has happened is that government-sponsored public prayers have been removed from the public schools.

    10. One school told the valedictorian commencement speaker not to mention Jesus or religion in his speech. He valiantly defied them though. The free exercise of religion is about actions, not just private or silent prayers. Teachers can’t lead a class, or coaches a team, in prayers. Don’t you think that’s wrong? After all, the Catholic Church started the university systems and schools in Europe, and many in the US. Read Dr. Thomas E. Woods’ “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.” You can read the first chapters which is an overview of the whole book for free here:
      http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280
      Or his audio series on EWTN:
      http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/selectseries.asp

    11. In private religious schools, school-sponsored prayer and religious instruction is acceptable. However, in a public school, students, faculty, and administrators of many different faiths are present. In a public school, school-sponsored prayer and religious instruction are not acceptable. In addition, Jesus said that prayer should be private.

    12. Wrong! Jesus prayed publicly many times in the New Testament. At the Lord’s Supper, “And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, ‘Take and eat; this is my body’” (Matt.26:26). the Lord’s Prayer (Matt., vi, 9); Christ’s own prayer after resuscitating Lazarus (John, xi, 41); and the testimonies in Heb., v, 7, and xiii, 15, and frequently we are recommended to use hymns, canticles, and other vocal forms of prayer. It has been common in the Church from the beginning; nor has it ever been denied.
      http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/prayer

      Prayer has been in our schools since the country’s founding. It has only been removed since 1962. Congress used to start every session with a prayer. Presidents from Washington on up have called for national days of prayer. Even President Obama has asked God to bless Planned Baby Killing…I mean, Planned Parenthood.

    13. A text without a context is a pretext for having it say whatever you want….revisionist history out of context.

      “Whereas the 1783 Treaty of Paris that officially ended the Revolution and established America as an independent begins with the appellation `In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity’;”

      This reference to the trinity was not an acknowledgment by the government of the United States that America was a Christian nation. It was an acknowledgment by the government of Great Britain that England was a Christian nation. “In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity” was just the customary way that Great Britain began their treaties and other documents. The United States had nothing to do with this wording.

      The trinity opening appears only in treaties that were drafted by the agents of other governments, and then signed by the United States. This happened three times — the 1783 treaty with Great Britain, the 1822 Convention with Great Britain, and an 1816 treaty with Sweden and Norway. When it was the other way around, and treaties with these same nations were written by the agents of the United States government, they did not contain any such acknowledgment. Also absent was the phrase “by the grace of God,” which preceded the name of a Christian monarch when the Christian nation wrote the treaty, as well as the lengthy strings of other titles, both religious and otherwise, that typically followed the names of both monarchs and their agents. The United States apparently just didn’t care if an someone happened to be a Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, or who was the most Serene or Illustrious.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/david-bartons-lies-in-act_b_858570.html

    14. Phil, John Adams said, “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” Read more in my very next comment below.

    15. Thanks, Phil, for the atheist link—I needed a good laugh on this glorious summer afternoon. Writer Henry James said that the 2 most beautiful words in the English language are “summer afternoon.” I think the 2 most beautiful are “Christ resurrected.” Jesus said, “That those who believed in Him would not die but would have eternal life” (John 3:16). Ah, what a glorious thought! Gives one such hope for eternity, and gives us a taste of heaven in our daily lives when we pray, or do works of mercy, and obey God. It is a nice prayer, “Christ resurrected.”

      I feel so sorry for the atheists. They start each day with doubt, and negativity, without hope for eternity. Without meaning and purpose.

      And, oh yes, John Adams. He lived to be 91 and was cranky at the end and was also bitter when his adored wife Abigail was sick and near death, and he said some cynical things.

      When he was younger and in his right mind he said: “Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.”

      “But I must submit all my Hopes and Fears, to an overruling Providence, in which, unfashionable as the Faith may be, I firmly believe.”

      “Human passions unbridled by morality and religion…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.”

      As President he called on Americans for a National Day of Prayer.

    16. How do same -sex sexual acts respect the inherent Dignity of the human person is a question that is not limited just to Religion, although it is true that only The True God can endow us with our unalienable Rights to begin with. The desire to engage in any type of act that does not respect our inherent Dignity as a son or daughter, does not change the nature of the act.

    17. This is the USA and the Constitution defines the inherent dignity of the human being…right of due process and equal protection under the law. When you violate a person’s civil rights you diminish their dignity There is no mention of any God, nor a True God, whatever that is, in the Constitution.

  6. Great piece! I keep wondering these days if my atheist Libertarian father has any idea that he is unwittingly helping to usher in the Big Brother world he read about in 1984…I’m sure he fancies himself to be WInston Smith when in fact his philosophical outlook has helped let the O’Brien’s come into full power here in America! I’ll need to ask him about that next time I talk to him…

    1. Thanks, Kim, and don’t give up on your father. I used to be an atheist so there’s hope for anyone. Be kind, be patient. Dr. Kengor mentions Libertarians in his book:

      “…in signing on the dotted line for gay marriage, they have also, whether they know it or not (actually, they do not), enlisted in the radical left’s unyielding, centuries-old attempt to undermine the family. They are being used, duped. For that matter, so are Republicans and “conservatives” who support gay marriage, so are libertarians (who suffer from an idolatry of freedom fully decoupled from faith)…”

  7. Great balance, Jamey ! You must be having a lot of down time in that cab of yours to put together
    such a thoughtful piece.

    1. Thanks, james. Yes, I did miss a few days to write this, but this book just shook my very foundations. I was duped by these New Left radicals in the 60’s and 70’s. Thankfully I turned 180 degrees.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *