If SCOTUS Says "Yes" to Gay Marriage. . .

United States Supreme Court

A few days ago, I spoke with an ardent advocate for faith and family in New England, where securalism, pluralism, and academic conformity have replaced the fundamental values on which this country is based.

I had asked him his thoughts about the upcoming decision from the Supreme Court of the United States, whether they would recognize the radical redefinition of marriage. He admitted that many people have been pressing for his thoughts on the matter, and ultimately he was all burned out on talking about the subject.

Working very hard to protect churches and families, this man was tired. While he rested, I pointed out that a growing number of pastors across the country had signaled to the Supreme Court: "We will not comply!"

He glibly answered: "What's that supposed to mean? They should not be complying in the first place!"

I agreed with his point. No one should be complying with an unjust, unsound, unconstitutional decision from the Supreme Court.

Now, gay marriage became a legal fiction in Massachusetts, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court forced gay marriage onto the Bay State in 2004, and to this day pro-family, pro-marriage, and pro-life forces have mobilized to stop the crushing advance of an agenda which rocks,  mocks, and ultimately seeks to destroy the very fabric of society.

Massachusetts, now derided as "Marx-achusetts", is losing population, money, and even inner stability. Local conservatives have informed me that many still do not recognize gay marriage. So much for the argument that the courts can reshape public opinion or policy.

Without families, there is no community. Without communities, there is no civilization. Without civilization, there is poverty, chaos, and death.

Every state, every country which abandoned marriage, strong families, and well-raised children disappeared into the ash-heap of history.

This debate is more than a matter of disagreement or difference of opinion. The notion that man can redefine marriage is the argument that man is God, that he needs to submit to no other opinion than his feelings or the opinions of the times.

The times are a changing, and they will always change. Men will find themselves on the right or wrong side of history, regardless of the final dictates or determinations of the truth.

Now, turning from the arbitrary and arrogant decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, let us consider what SCOTUS may do, and whether it really matters.

Let us establish the following  moral certainty: the Supreme Court, or any court is not the final arbiter of truth.

SCOTUS once ruled, through the mouth of its Chief Justice Roger Taney, that "Negroes are a subordinate class of human beings which have no rights a white man is bound to respect."

Excuse me? The Declaration of Independence affirmed "All men are created equal" then referred to mankind. Even if the Framers were not living up to the standards in this document, the country grew in awareness of Our Creator and Redeemer's endowment of rights and liberties.

SCOTUS also declared in Plessy v Ferguson that "separate but equal" was acceptable in public places. No, it was not, and never would be. Segregation throughout the country produced unequal opportunities, and diminished the status of different people, for no other reason than the color of their skins.

SCOTUS even upheld a Presidential order targeting one ethnic group, and specifically those living in one part of the country, as enemies of the state. Americans of Japanese descent living along the West Coast of the United States were forced to sell their property, take oaths, or face internment, as the President at the time feared that among their numbers thrived terrorist cells in league with the axis power.

The Court has also reversed its prior decisions.

If SCOTUS says "Yes!" to gay marriage, it will not matter. No more than man can tell the sun to stop shining, or the earth to stop spinning on its axis. Man's pronouncement on any institution is irrelevant. Courts cannot mandate water flowing from dried up mountains into desert conditions. Court rulings cannot remake mathematics, science, or economics. Let SCOTUS declare "Two plus two equals five" and 2 + 2 will still equal four.

Just as pro-life advocates never stopped advocating for life, the stance on marriage, the institution which predated the state, will not give way, no matter what the "final" ruling of a court.



Welsh wedding (Geoff Charles)
Marriage is here to stay, no matter what
the Supreme Court rules