IT AIN'T OVER YET

June 27, 2013

At the risk of offending my conservative Southern Baptist pastor friends and with a lot of trepidation over fears of being misunderstood by the Christian community at large, I come out right here and now to say that I am not at all surprised at the Supreme Court decision to strike down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Court will return someday soon to finish the deed of striking the rest of it soon enough.

 The truth be told, I have had a problem with DOMA because it was the first time the federal government defined marriage (as if it needed defining). To me, that was a set up. In fact, I have always believed that the government should not be involved in marriage at all.

Please don't misunderstand what I am saying. I want the government out of my bedroom, my garage, my family get-togethers, my church, my belief system and out of my head!

The Court's decision Wednesday amounts to changing the eternal family unit which was always understood and defined since the beginning of even the earliest of civilizations. It is culturally the most radical change of any institution in the history of mankind.

When Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed DOMA back in 1996, I believed that it was government intrusion. Oh yes, the government thought it was doing good by protecting a non-gay marriage state from a progressive pro-gay marriage state. The Congress also thought that just because one or two states may allow for gay marriage it doesn't mean the Federal government or the IRS needs to acknowledge it.  This was, and is, "The Setup."

The denial of marital benefits for tax purposes what the crux used to bring DOMA before the Court. And it worked. When Congress defined marriage as between one man and one woman, Christians and traditionalists may have stood back and applauded, but it opened Pandora's box to allow a far-left activist court to strike it down and redefine it according to the radical ideologies of special interests.

Today's court rulings were just enough - for now. But, don't think for a moment the pro-gay marriage issue has been satisfied. It's just starting and by the the first of next year there will, no doubt, be the next lawsuit. It will probably be over having a gay couple's marriage in Massachusetts be acknowledged and benefits extended to them in, say Virginia, Florida or any other state which doesn't acknowledge same-sex marriage.

It is like a wedge that splits a huge rock. The Court is right now allowing the few states that accept homosexual “marriages” to rip apart the bedrock institution of marriage. Although it appears the Court tipped its hat toward States Rights, truly anything goes now.

To explain at little of what the Court did Wednesday with the DOMA case, five justices decided that the 1996 law singled out married homosexuals and denied them government benefits they were entitled to by virtue of being “married,” something that never would have happened in the first place if not for states like California, where elected officials like Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom ignored voters and existing law to hand out marriage licenses on their own authority.

Newsom’s illegal shenanigans while mayor of San Francisco, in fact, led directly to the ballot initiative Proposition 8, which outlawed homosexual “marriages” but was also ignored by the liberals in charge of the state.

Justice Anthony Kennedy provided the swing vote by siding with the court’s Democratic appointees. Indulging in the circular reasoning of the majority, he wrote that DOMA “places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the state has sought to dignify.”

Now it's all about discrimination.

Hey? Do you wonder when the court will revisit the admission of Utah to the Union, since one of the requirements of statehood was the illegalization of Mormon polygamy? Certainly Mormons in polygamous marriages are being demeaned and put in an unstable position as well.

For that matter, there are probably a lot of child brides out there waiting to happen. NAMBLA must be jumping up and down for joy today.

The second case the Supremes considered was with California's Prop. 8. The Justices decided not to get entangled in a states affairs. Many conservatives think they took the coward’s way out with that 5-4 vote. I think they waved a hand at the 10th Amendment and said "Look what we found!" The Court ruled that the people who appealed the lower court ruling overturning it did not have standing to appeal. Again, that’s because the liberal “leadership” of California ignored the will of the voters and refused to defend the law, leaving it up to others, who have now been declared not to have legal standing.

The one positive in the "double disaster" is that the court technically did not rule on the validity of Prop. 8, or similar state bans, merely remanded it back to the lower courts and let the existing ruling stand for a technicality. Thank God for that, but they will be forced to consider it in a few years, perhaps in the next three years. We should all be thankful the Justices didn't just say "Prop 8 is unconstitutional and so are the 32 other states which have laws and Constitutional Amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage."

It’s small comfort as the entire country will now go down the dark highway of homosexual “marriage” and whole new rounds of legal nonsense and manipulation from the Left. The battles are far from over and Wednesday's decision mark only the start of the Secular Progressives all out assault on marriage. Expect interest groups to now try to leverage today’s decisions into legal weapons with which to go after conservatives and their churches and temples. That’s what happened in every country that ever adopted homosexual “marriage.” Take Denmark, for instance. Last year their ruling legislative bodies voted to "force" churches to host gay marriages within its walls, or risk the confiscation of its property and fines and jail time levied on its church officials.

Those who don’t know their history. …

It’s noteworthy that the court zeroed in on government benefits as a key point. Homosexual activists have denied for years that they were after special privileges, but the court cited health care, tax and military benefits in its DOMA decision.

In his dissent in the DOMA case, Justice Antonin Scalia sharply attacked the court’s judicial activism, writing, “It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”

Chief Justice Roberts similarly criticized the court’s role in the DOMA case: “Interests in uniformity and stability amply justified Congress’s decision to retain the definition of marriage that, at that point, had been adopted by every State in our Nation, and every nation in the world.”

Roberts also attacked the majority’s illogic, writing, “The majority sees a more sinister motive, pointing out that the Federal Government has generally (though not uniformly) deferred to state definitions of marriage in the past. That is true, of course, but none of those prior state-by-state variations had involved differences over something — as the majority puts it — ‘thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of [marriage] and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization.’”

Justice Samuel Alito pointed out the obvious: “The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue.”

Alito also noted that no one, least of all judges, can know for certain what long-term impacts homosexual “marriage” will have.

We’re about to find out, as far-left loon "San Fransicko" Mayor Newsom once put it, “whether you like it or not.”


We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.