Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at 2013 same sex wedding
By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil –
The Supreme Court decision demanding that all states allow homosexuals to marry is arguably one of the more disputed and controversial rulings of our time. The decision evoked elation by many who had fought long and hard for the rights of homosexuals to marry, but it also lit a firestorm of dissension from other segments of our population: people of faith and constitutional scholars.
The issue remains highly divisive and deserves to be explored, because it, like the abortion decision, redefined historically valued laws and customs, while ignoring the teachings of the World’s major religions. That is a very serious matter, and brings into question why five justices changed a law that has the potential to adversely affect our culture and thus lives.
America’s society is largely influenced and ultimately shaped by laws that govern the people. Therefore, a law that affects every state has an enormous impact on our entire society, and cannot be taken lightly. When a Court enacts a law that violates the teachings of every major religion, such as Christianity, it is a particularly serious issue. Over 70 percent of American citizens identify as Christian and another 6 percent represent other religions. That is over three fourths of our citizens whose moral and spiritual values were just challenged by five of our country’s Supreme Court justices.
While supporters of homosexual marriage claim the new ruling will not have an impact on the church, there is absolutely no proof that is true. In fact, it is practically guaranteed to affect it. Will homosexuals demand to be married in churches? Will expensive lawsuits result to force churches to violate their biblical beliefs? What if the church ultimately refuses to violate their beliefs and will not perform homosexual marriages? Will the government punish them, possibly by refusing to renew their tax exempt status? With activist Justices in many of our courtrooms today, many people suspect the worst. It is feared our government will not protect the Church as vehemently as they do those who oppose its beliefs.
Impact of Ruling?
The new definition of marriage defies historical precedence. Traditional marriages have benefited families and thus has been the bedrock of our society. Solid marriages and intact families are an indication of the health of a society and, therefore, the country. The value and importance of strong marriages and families within our communities and the country cannot be stressed enough. It behooves everyone to avoid trends and changes that tend to negatively impact the American family. Chief Justice John Roberts in his minority dissent, agreed that the Courts revision of our marriage law undermines America’s democratic process, as it basically transforms the societal institution that has held together humanity for millennia.”
Questions remain as to how the Supreme Court ruling will impact the church in general and people of faith individually. Will the new law be a catalyst for more invasive changes on marriage issues? How will the ruling affect and/or impact other laws, other entities, and ultimately the future direction of our Country? Were these questions even considered by the Justices, or was this more about ideology: liberals winning a stunning victory over conservatives? Did President Obama influence the decision? Certainly he made his opinion known when the verdict was released and he made the unprecedented decision to decorate the People’s House (The White House), with the homosexual symbol of rainbow colored lights. Did he consider that half of the country found that exhibition distasteful; deserving of what a referee would consider an “excessive celebration penalty”?
Majority Opinion Defies Reason
The five Supreme Court justices robbed states of their right to judge the issue. They defied every major religion in the world that condemns homosexuality, and they ignored a time-honored tradition that may well cause a crack in the backbone of civilized society. Why did they demand the title of “marriage? Homosexuals were allowed “civil” rights, which provided them the benefits they sought from the lawsuit.
It should also be noted that Justices are expected to recuse themselves if they have a known prejudice on a case being decided. Justices Kagan and Ginsburg accepted invitations to officiate at homosexual weddings. That action by a judge of their stature would seem to clearly show a prejudice, but neither recused themselves and were thus part of the five who made the law legal.
The controversial decision was made without any concrete evidence as to how it would benefit our country as a whole. It was made without clear public support, and it clearly defied historical precedence. It is easy to understand why a major part of the public is disgusted with the five justices who chose to make a law rather than judge it. They robbed states of their right to define marriage laws. The Constitution of the United States is clear on the issue stating: “The federal government has only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution — and that all other powers belong either to the states or to the people themselves.” Read more at this site.
No matter whether you agree or disagree with the decision; few can argue that traditional marriage has been violated. All patriots should be concerned when five Supreme Court justices overstepped their authority. That is a warning to the public to give serious attention to the candidates for President in the 2016 election. It is anticipated one or more Supreme Court justices will retire. The new president will have the power to nominate justices to replace any who resign. It is vital our next president value our Constitution, our history, and have a respect for the culture that launched America into greatness, so that the nomination will be a justice who values those pillars of our society, who at some later date doesn’t stray away from the values upon which the nomination was based.