Part 1: Supreme Court Must Rule for State Defined Marriage

Instead of a bended knee, will the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) present a stiff middle finger to Our Father who art in Heaven this June, just as the same institution did in 1973 with Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton which legitimized the greatest human holocaust in American history?

In February 2015, the court refused to issue a stay, that had a controversial result, in an Alabama case where the constitutional amendment of the state enacted in 2006 says in part, “Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman.” This non-action of SCOTUS along with public comments by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were seen by many as an indication a pro-homosexual final outcome of the legal marriage issue to be taken up this April and to be decided by that court this June 2015.

What Does The Justice’s View Mean Besides Bias?

Justice Ginsburg is reported to have said, it “would not take a large adjustment” for Americans should the justices say that gay marriage is a constitutional right. Spoken not from an ivory tower as you would expect, but from it’s equivalent in marble and oak. Her simplistic view of  “adjustment” means that 81.18 percent of Alabama voters will be denied self governance. At Gettysburg alone, 1,750 Alabamans died because of denial of self governance. It also would mean “adjusting” to the power of the state being used to trample religious liberty as in the case of this Washington State Baptist. A basis for this “adjustment” according to the justice, is that she believes that Americans are, “…very fond of them.” – homosexuals being the object of fondness.

Americans’ are fond of many things like: Disneyworld, puppy dogs, television, crack cocaine, and pornography. This kind of justification is exactly what will be used when the push by other special interests expands America’s fondness for, not just sex but public sex, into almost any area of life.

The 2007 Sundance Film Festival entry “Zoo” is an example of the beginnings of a movement that mirrors the beginnings of, and actually borrows, the best tactics from the homosexual political agenda. As the film makers said in a NY Times story about two men discovered having sex with horses where one man died, “We’re going to revive their humanity.” This successful tactic for changing laws or attitudes is to get people to appreciate another person as valuable by insisting that whatever that person wants to do is also valuable, thereby surrendering ones judgment to the supposed greater good of autonomy for all.

This principle is at work in the example of a friend of mine who after attending his sister’s homosexual “wedding” told me that he didn’t approve of gay marriage but wanted to support his sister. This confusion is because we have become accustomed to relinquishing our understanding of right and wrong, desirable or undesirable, to the power of love of another. This is not noble at all because it is a denial of ones own worth and place in society. This kind of power over another is obvious to everyone except the woman who remains under the power of a man who mistreats her. Of course the Catholic Church has another way given to us by God himself.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (ccc 2358)

How Will It Go, The Court Case?

We always seem to want to know the future even when we don’t have enough evidence to judge accurately. The huge popularity of sports betting comes to mind. This could be, hopefully, another one of those times when those who have much invested in the question say, “But I thought…”. It is true that the favorite in a horse race finishes in the money over 90% of the time. You would cash your ticket an unbelievable number of times, but if you were to only bet the favorite you would lose money in the long run because of the bite taken out of the pari-mutuel pie before bets are paid. I am engaging here in a prediction; that if this seeming favorite wins we will actually lose. This was so in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, where 600,000 American soldier lives were lost (a greater number than all American wars to follow combined!) in a civil war pushed forward in great part by an inhumane set of slavery laws. No matter which side you considered the favorite in that war at any one time, both sides were suffering great destruction by the time General Lee surrendered his army.

During the scouting of a movie location, I sat on the ground to rest near a row of dilapidated wooden cabins once lived in by slaves. Sitting next to me was a Southern man who was a department manager in a local plant. He told me, we took care of them, they were part of our life. They couldn’t live on their own, we gave them a good life.  The Confederacy was “fond” of their slaves and slave culture.

Unless this new fabrication of “homosexual marriage” is defeated, marriage itself and family which it supports will inevitably become totally obsolete, eagerly filled by the strongest political ideology. More groups eagerly waiting to somehow gain legitimacy for their life styles will clamor for inclusion in this judicial holy anointment. Defeat of this radical social change, if not immediatly total, has to come at the state level reflecting the will of the people whose country this is. These are the great number of people that have voted to not support this lifestyle. That is why sympathetic radical federal courts have been the favorite tactic of those who are pushing this radical anti-family agenda.

What Can the Court do?

The U.S. Constitution leaves marriage issues to the states. The Supreme court is only allowed by our Constitution to judge state law based on conflict with the United States Constitution. It has done so by the authority reasoned to be granted to it since our Articles of Confederation were revised and became our Constitution ratified in 1788. Traditionally the court is not allowed to decide based upon what it likes, or what may be thought to be, or actually is in the best interest of the country. Lower federal courts can decide the cases before it, and unless these rulings and issues are substantially the same, it takes SCOTUS to finalize the question for all courts – federal and state and other lower jurisdictions.

 The Argument from the Homosexual Plaintiffs.

The reply briefs filed in support of homosexual marriage and support of a Supreme Court ruling on the matter, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, claimed:

  • A lack of the ability to marry.
  • The lack of uniform recognition of a marriage.
  • The unpleasant results of not being able to marry.

In other words; I want, I want, I want! These are their arguments for forcing a state government to submit to their will despite the wishes of a state (it’s citizens) itself.

Lack of ability to marry is understood. I see lack of uniformity whenever I cross a state line and at high speed the speed limit changes. Results determined to be unpleasant  in this case are only selfishly subjective. Many results occur as a natural result of not obeying the law. These could also be arguments for a one world government eliminating other countries self determination.

The unpleasant results centers on the lack of ability to inherit the various privileges and rules that have grown around marriage that are not granted to the un-married. As a single person and a member of a much, much larger class than homosexuals, I do not have these things either. Just being a single person is of no importance to many who live this self centered lifestyle. This fact is an important indicator as to the future of children in these marriages as a new study with a much better sample size than previous ones has pointed out, and as one child of these marriages eloquently has said or as homosexuals have said here and here. The proper way to grant privilages is to revise law and procedures to accommodate those areas of interest by simply allowing choice, not hijacking marriage, demeaning it, and diluting it, and eventually eliminating it, in order to take a shortcut.

I believe though, that this avenue is merely a subterfuge, a next step up from the forgotten civil unions, merely using law to gain acceptance of a discredited lifestyle in common sense, natural law, and God’s law. According to Pew Research Center, only about half of LGBT people answered yes to the question, “If you could, would you like to get married someday?” The report also stated that, “Lesbian couples accounted for over three-fifths of the more than 50,000 same-sex marriages that were identified by gender.” What do the men want?

The Argument from the Executive Branch.

The currently politically pandering leaders in the Executive Branch of the federal government have recently joined this SCOTUS case declaring FOR same sex marriage and stating that:

…the “dignity and status” of civil marriage and the “far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people” that civil marriage represents.

Between two people is explicitly stated. In this version of marriage that this political sector wishes to force on America from a federal legal platform, is stating a negative also by defining marriage in a way that rejects intimate relationships between more than two people. I presume from this comment that when that kind of intimate relationship does exist, the law should not allow it to have “dignity and status”. It also declares that in order to marry a person of the same sex, the couple would have to be intimate. What does that mean except an active homosexual relationship. In other words, the idea that a persons sexual orientation should be ignored for all other purposes in American life such as employment, is reversed, declaring that sexual orientation should be specially recognized. No other sexual practice is given even a thought here. This support is blatantly partial to a particular group (or class as the lawyers like to say) of Americans. The governments claim is that homosexuals are denied marriage because of the 14th amendment. But, this bias of their claim is itself a violation of the Equal Protection Clause if you agree with their thinking. It states in section 1, “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  This rejection of polygamy was so powerful in the 19th century that it caused the Mormon church to change it’s overt support in return for Utah statehood.

Why are polygamists excluded  from marriage in the view of our political leaders and judges? Because, these kind of judgments are moral. Polygamists have not been given the same media coverage and support by the amoral elite. Moral judgments are not legal until the people decide. We must refer to the statement by the Church quoted above for legitimate moral guidance in creating such laws.

To be continued in Part 2 , published on 3.30.15.