THE U.S. SUPREME COURT will very likely rule in June that the preposterous invention known as “gay marriage” must be recognized in all states, even states that have laws against it. The court is hearing arguments in the matter this month. If the highest court were to rule that all people must declare the earth is flat, and must act as if the earth is flat, it would be no more absurd. There is no such thing as “gay marriage.” There never will be any such thing as “gay marriage.” It doesn’t exist no matter how many lawyers say it does or how many people act as if it does or how many newspapers produce maudlin stories of loving “couples,” whose existence would not be valid without phony marriage certificates and mock weddings.

The U.S. Constitution has been virtually torn to shreds. We can expect the further unraveling of civil rights in the years ahead if the Supreme Court rules as is likely. All those people who ignorantly asked, “What difference does it make?” are going to find out and it’s not going to be pretty.

— Comments —

Bill R. writes:

Well said.

I would only make one amendment to your statement. It is where you say, “The U.S. Constitution has been virtually torn to shreds.” Rather, I would say, it no longer has any substantive existence at all. It is but a collection of empty words now, an historical curiosity, a sentimental bit of the past with all the relevance of a dusty letter found in an attic from an old love lost long ago, a vestigial remnant of a republic that has long since given way to a tyranny that grows harder by the day. Today, its words are frozen in permanent self-mockery, the very opposite of what law was meant to be, as they stand void of force or power before those black-robed soothsayers who read their will into them as if they were but tea leaves, and pronounce to us all our future and our fate. That quaint document is no longer the law of the land, and cannot be, for we are no longer governed by laws.

Terry Morris writes:

I gave an introductory speech to a group of about fifty locals in February, 2010 in which I carried to the podium with me three documents – a copy of the U.S. Constitution, a copy of the Federalist
Papers and of Washington’s Farewell Speech. The gist of my short presentation was basically this: you can’t possibly understand this (holding up the Constitution) until you’ve thoroughly read and studied
and understood this (holding up the Federalist); and given that fact, you can’t possibly understand how meaningless this (the Constitution again) has become in the hands of its so called “ultimate arbiters,”
the unaccountable criminals that comprise the federal judiciary; and you can’t possibly understand how criminal they are until you go past the tenth amendment and have understood both. Ditto for the Executive and Legislative branches.

You’re absolutely right: all is lost; there can be no doubt about it to my mind. Gay “marriage” is but one symptom of the cancer that will destroy us in the not too distant future. There’s no stopping it now.
The light finally came on in its full brilliancy for me when the Chief Justice (Roberts) wrote in his opinion on Obamacare that it is “constitutional” under the preamble of Article I, sec. 8; an argument
that the Federalist explicitly declares to be utterly false and outside the boundaries of anything resembling the spirit in which the founders wrote the Constitution, not to mention in which the states adopted it.

Whereas we’re not properly catechized on biblical principles – an argument you often make and I agree with – neither are we properly catechized on Constitutional principles. I often refer to the average American as both biblically and Constitutionally illiterate. And so we are.

Buck writes:

Terry Morris writes: “There’s no stopping it now.”

So now what?

Laura writes:

The popes of the Catholic Church before the current interregnum of widespread apostasy by those who claim Church authority predicted all this and warned of it — and provided the answers.

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Diuturnum, “On the Origin of Civil Power,” June 29, 1881, wrote:

[T]he doctrines on political power invented by late writers have already produced great ills amongst men, and it is to be feared that they will cause the very greatest disasters to posterity. For an unwillingness to attribute the right of ruling to God, as its Author, is not less than a willingness to blot out the greatest splendor of political power and to destroy its force. And they who say that this power depends on the will of the people err in opinion first of all; then they place authority on too weak and unstable a foundation. For the popular passions, incited and goaded on by these opinions, will break out more insolently; and, with great harm to the common weal, descend headlong by an easy and smooth road to revolts and to open sedition. In truth, sudden uprisings and the boldest rebellions immediately followed in Germany the so-called Reformation,[29] the authors and leaders of which, by their new doctrines, attacked at the very foundation religious and civil authority; and this with so fearful an outburst of civil war and with such slaughter that there was scarcely any place free from tumult and bloodshed. From this heresy there arose in the last century a false philosophy — a new right as it is called, and a popular authority, together with an unbridled license which many regard as the only true liberty. Hence we have reached the limit of horrors, to wit, communism, socialism, nihilism, hideous deformities of the civil society of men and almost its ruin. And yet too many attempt to enlarge the scope of these evils, and under the pretext of helping the multitude, already have fanned no small flames of misery. The things we thus mention are neither unknown nor very remote from us.

24. This, indeed, is all the graver because rulers, in the midst of such threatening dangers, have no remedies sufficient to restore discipline and tranquillity. They supply themselves with the power of laws, and think to coerce, by the severity of their punishment, those who disturb their governments. They are right to a certain extent, but yet should seriously consider that no power of punishment can be so great that it alone can preserve the State. For fear, as St. Thomas admirably teaches, “is a weak foundation; for those who are subdued by fear would, should an occasion arise in which they might hope for immunity, rise more eagerly against their rulers, in proportion to the previous extent of their restraint through fear.” And besides, “from too great fear many fall into despair; and despair drives men to attempt boldly to gain what they desire.”[30] That these things are so we see from experience. It is therefore necessary to seek a higher and more reliable reason for obedience, and to say explicitly that legal severity cannot be efficacious unless men are led on by duty, and moved by the salutary fear of God. But this is what religion can best ask of them, religion which by its power enters into the souls and bends the very wills of men causing them not only to render obedience to their rulers, but also to show their affection and good will, which is in every society of men the best guardian of safety. [emphases added]

Pope Piux XI in 1925 wrote in his encyclical Quas Primas, “On the Kingship of Christ:”

When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord’s regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen’s duty of obedience. It is for this reason that St. Paul, while bidding wives revere Christ in their husbands, and slaves respect Christ in their masters, warns them to give obedience to them not as men, but as the vicegerents of Christ; for it is not meet that men redeemed by Christ should serve their fellow-men. “You are bought with a price; be not made the bond-slaves of men.”[32] If princes and magistrates duly elected are filled with the persuasion that they rule, not by their own right, but by the mandate and in the place of the Divine King, they will exercise their authority piously and wisely, and they will make laws and administer them, having in view the common good and also the human dignity of their subjects. The result will be a stable peace and tranquillity, for there will be no longer any cause of discontent. Men will see in their king or in their rulers men like themselves, perhaps unworthy or open to criticism, but they will not on that account refuse obedience if they see reflected in them the authority of Christ God and Man. Peace and harmony, too, will result; for with the spread and the universal extent of the kingdom of Christ men will become more and more conscious of the link that binds them together, and thus many conflicts will be either prevented entirely or at least their bitterness will be diminished.

20. If the kingdom of Christ, then, receives, as it should, all nations under its way, there seems no reason why we should despair of seeing that peace which the King of Peace came to bring on earth — he who came to reconcile all things, who came not to be ministered unto but to minister, who, though Lord of all, gave himself to us as a model of humility, and with his principal law united the precept of charity; who said also: “My yoke is sweet and my burden light.” Oh, what happiness would be Ours if all men, individuals, families, and nations, would but let themselves be governed by Christ! “Then at length,” to use the words addressed by our predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, twenty-five years ago to the bishops of the Universal Church, “then at length will many evils be cured; then will the law regain its former authority; peace with all its blessings be restored. Men will sheathe their swords and lay down their arms when all freely acknowledge and obey the authority of Christ, and every tongue confesses that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.”[33] [emphases added]

Paul C. writes:

It is a guess when deciding whether the Supreme Court will decide.  We might as well flip a coin: so much for the Court’s self-created stare decisis doctrine (somewhat effective only in most non-political decisions).  The doctrine means to follow prior principles.  Where did the doctrine go in Roe v. Wade, for example?  Two hundred years?  If the Constitution is a living breathing document, it is gasping for air.

This could be an extremely important decision (unless expressly limited to the facts of the case) about overriding or not overriding traditionally strong state powers over marriage.  State “police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.”  See Wikipedia.  It is based on the often disregarded Tenth Amendment, part of the darn Bill of Rights for goodness sake: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Tenth Amendment is potentially a powerful Amendment but has been largely ignored by the Supreme Court because its members want to do what they want, as Congress and the President do.  But that is the fundamental fault of Justices and why their terms and power should be restricted.  It is why James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights.

Laura writes:

It’s a guess what the Court will do, but it’s an educated guess. A decision against marriage is highly likely.

Please follow and like us: