Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Homosexual "marriage" is now legal . . . DOMA is dead.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on the SCOTUS decision:
In a 5-4 decision, which, did not surprise anyone, the Supreme Court demonstrated once again that the federal high court is willing to impose by judicial edict what the voters of the individual States in the majority of States have refused to do: allow the marriage of homosexuals.
Marriage was a mutual covenant between a man and a woman sworn before God. Literally, a contract undertaken before God. A religious ceremony.
In today’s bastardization of the English language and the usurpation of terminology to mean other than the traditional meaning, marriage is now a social contract between “persons”. God is no longer involved. Hence, the high divorce rate, especially amongst those homosexuals who’ve married in civil unions under State law.
Why has marriage become such a social issue for some?
Quite simply put, it is money, stupid. There exists no civil rights nor any Constitutional issue, except in the minds of socialist liberals hell bent on the destruction of the western Judeo-Christian moral foundation and law.
The tax code and law extend to married couples mutual property rights, survivor’s benefits, and health benefits. The homosexual agenda for marriage has to do with money, not ‘rights’. This was never and is not a civil rights issue. It is a legal issue regarding property. Something that the States should have could have take care of, if the majority of people in each State required such from their respective legislature.
In any case, the issue of homosexual unions under secular law, as they cannot exist under Chrisitian religious doctrine/law, were an issue for the People of the various States to resolve, not nine unelected jurists who cannot leave their ideology and prejudice out of their decision.
Unfortunately, there is another component to this issue that is going to get ugly. That is the homosexual hatred of Christianity and the Christian beliefs of the individual not a homosexual.
What makes that issue ugly is the homosexual goal is to gain privilege and power over the common heterosexual man and woman and their beliefs so that they may be “punished” for those beliefs. As we Christians say, “it is the sin, not the sinner, that we oppose.”
There have been law suits attempting to force caterers and other wedding service companies owned by Christians to do business with homosexuals against the wishes of the business owner based upon the owner’s Christianity. This activity will increase, as will lawsuits by employees and their significant “other” over survivor’s and health benefits by unions, government, private industry and small business.
The same attempt at using the courts to coerce Christian churches into performing homosexual marriage ceremonies has failed. The 1st Amendment should be inviolate regarding the court or government from coercing the churches’ religious beliefs and the religious beliefs of the individual against that individual’s will and religious beliefs.
The President has stated that he will not force a church to marry a homosexual couple. Such a promise from this President, who prior to his election in 2008 and 2012 opposed marriage by homosexuals does not give one comfort. However, he is barred by law from trying to order a church to perform a religious ceremony to the benefit of homosexuals.
1st Amendment to Constitution of the United States:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Thus far, we have not seen any such attempt to coerce Muslim Imam into performing a marriage between homosexuals in a Muslim Mosque, or force a Muslim owned marriage service business to do business with homosexuals. When that happens, what happens next should be very interesting.
Under Islam, homosexuals are to be beaten publically, and, if they do not change their ways, killed.
Yet, homosexuals abhor Christianity and Christians above all. We will see how long that lasts, given the rise of political Islam in this country. There will come a day when homosexuals in this country will fervently pray for a return of the tolerance of Christianity.
What the Supreme Court did was demonstrate that modern federal courts do not hold the three branches of government equal, each with its respective responsibilities, but holds as standing above the Legislative Branch and willing to usurp that legislative power in the absence of will on the part of the Legislative Branch.
In the slip opinion released by the SCOTUS, in the dissenting opinion written by Justice Scalia, joined with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas in that slip opinion, Justice Scalia wrote the following:
"This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under theConstitution to invalidate this democratically adopted leg- islation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of therole of this institution in America.
The legal question at the heart of this case. Standing in the way is an obstacle, a technicality of little interest to anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as a barrier against judges’ intrusion into their lives. They gave judges, in Article III, only the “judicial Power,” a power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete "Cases” and “Controversies.” Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this lawsuit. They agree that the court below got it right; andthey agreed in the court below that the court below thatone got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here?
The answer lies at the heart of the jurisdictional portionof today’s opinion, where a single sentence lays bare the majority’s vision of our role. The Court says that we have the power to decide this case because if we did not, then our “primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law” (at least one that “has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff ”) would “become only secondary to the President’s.” Ante, at 12. But wait, the reader wonders—Windsor won below, and so cured her injury, and the President was glad to see it. True, says the majority, but judicial review must march on regardless, lest we “undermine the clear dictate of the separation-of-powers principle that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Ibid. (internal quotationmarks and brackets omitted).
That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role.
This image of the Court would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter. They knew well the dangers of “primary” power, and so created branches of government that would be “perfectly coordinate by the terms of their common commission,” none of which branches could “pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”
Justice Alito, with Justice Thomas wrote a separate dissenting opinion.
We have seen the abuses of the IRS in the current IRS scandal that are so egregious and outrageous that this abuse of power should catalyze Congress into seriously considering the abolishment of the IRS and the adoption of a flat tax or national sales tax in the stead of the several thousand pages of political pandering that is our tax code. Eliminating the IRS would be a decided boon to the promotion of business and freedom in this country. Unfortunately, this is not a Congress to desire smaller government.
The only way that we can prevent a repeat of what the Supreme Court did with the homosexual marriage issue is to require the Supreme Court and the federal courts to view constitutional issues with respect to the intent of the Framers. In other words, a strict constructionist view. Only the Legislative Branch can impose such a limitation. Further, the Legislative Branch can also limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal courts as to subject matter. The Legislative Branch of the federal government and of the various States can effectively end the courts legislating from the bench at all levels of government.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Katie Johns was an admitted usurpation of legislative authority by the federal court.
Nullification under the 10th Amendment is another way a State can ignore an unconstitutional law imposed by Congress or decision on the part of a federal court.
The courts have no standing army, no police force, no means to enforce their decisions. There decisions are enforced through the good will of the Executive and the Legislative branches of government. With the courts ever expanding usurpation of Legislative Branch powers by legislating from the bench, how much longer such good will is going to exist will be determined by the patience of the People for this outrageous and unconstitutional conduct on the part of the courts at every level.
The homosexual marriage issue is moot. The court has spoken.
What is important is to realize that the courts can be reigned in, the abuse demonstrated by the Obama Administration ended, if the Congress has the will. That will can only be instilled by electing people to Congress who are Tea Party Conservatives, strong constitutionalists and Christians. God must be returned to the public purview and must be confirmed as the moral foundation of this Republic. Otherwise, the Second Amendment may provide the final solution for We the People with the respect to the abuse of government and the overreaching by the courts.
For more information:
SCOTUS DOMA/PROP 8 Opinion: