Posted by
John Corson on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:23:24 PM
In the days to come, I intend to write about a series of concerns that would effect our entire traditional values and the culture as we know it. To me, the hottest issue outside of the economic downfall and the Iraq War, is the sweeping social changes which are taking place in the United States. In particular, I refer to legalization of Same-Sex Marriages in California (and before that Massachusetts). On July 15th, the Massachusetts legislature approved a measure that would overturn a ban which prohibits couples from obtaining marriage licenses if they couldn't legally wed in their home states. That being said, if approved, Massachusetts would join California in allowing non-residents to obtain marriage licenses and having their marriages solemnized.
The first question which comes to mind is this...Why would any gay couple travel from their home states to either Massachusetts or California to get married, only to return to their homes and not have it recognized? Obviously this would not make sense. So there must be an agenda brewing and that agenda is nothing other than having those "married" gay-activitsts return home and start the litigation process.
A gay couple I know went to California during the last week in June to get married. They have lived together for nearly fifteen years. Before they left, this couple contacted a couple of law firms to see what their status would be went they came back to Virginia. Of course, their marriage would not be recognized in the Commonwealth. Being somewhat wealthy and very much moving in the "activist mold," this couple has moved to put one of the largest law firms in the Norfolk, Va area on retainer with a view of challenging the anti-same sex marriage amendment to Virginia's Constitution. If pursued, litigation papers would be filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern Virginia District in Norfolk where, no doubt, Judge Raymond Jackson would be itching to hear the case. Should Chief Judge James Spencer give Jackson the nod, we would see one of the most liberal Clinton appointees to any federal bench rule on the case. The total number of liberals in that District Court is equal to the number of conservatives. There is little doubt that regardless of what decision is handed down, the case will be appealed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA. Quite possibly, within a year of that court's decision and appeal will be forwarded to SCOTUS. By the time it gets to the Supreme Court, Barack Obama will have already appointed at least one extreme liberal to that bench - possibly two.
Obama is on record as saying his idea of a great justice is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In her twelve years on the bench she has as yet (in 328 so-called "ideological" cases) to vote on one social issue with the conservatives, making her the only one on the bench to have never done that - NOT ONCE! Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter have a couple of conservative opinions during that time, and Justice John Paul Stevens has been known, on rare occasions, to rule on the conservative side. Obama loves Ginsburg and thinks she has a full hold on the Constitution as a "living document." Obama, in a November 11th interview with George Stephanopoulos said that there is no greater Hegelian mind on the court than Ginsburg. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, he was the German philosopher who propagated the dialectical method which stated that movement, or process, or
progress, is the result of the conflict of opposites. Traditionally, this
dimension of Hegel's thought has been analyzed in terms of the categories of
thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
To understand this, let's consider the recent decision by SCOTUS to strike down Washington D. C.'s gun ban. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a separate concurring opinion to the one offered by John Paul Stevens merely added that the 2nd Amendment is antiquated. That there are no militias and only militias were entitled to keep and bear arms. That it didn't matter what was in the minds of the original authors of that Amendment, "today's society with its needs, and mandates, require this antiquated portion of the Constitution to be ignored and leave to the states and localities the rights to make laws banning the sale, ownership and use of any arms." Notice she says, two hundred and fifteen years ago, the passing of the 2nd Amendment was the thesis, gun ban laws of today is the antithesis and she would say the synthesis is ignoring or abolishing the 2nd Amendment altogether. Isn't it interesting that this ardent opponent of states rights all of a sudden embraces states rights when it comes to bans on arms.
I have no doubt Obama will use Ginsburg as his model for Supreme Court Nominees and I would not be surprised, given Obama's previous stance on gun control, that he will use this recent 5 to 4 decision as a litmus test, just as Conservative Presidents once used Roe V Wade as their litmus.
O K, back to the real issue at hand,...will a more liberal SCOTUS overturn 31 state constitutional amendments, DOMA and a host of other state laws in the name of equal rights and protections for Gays? You bet ya. Now what will that mean for religion in general and Judeo-Christianity in particular? I have no doubt that activist gays, once they have successfully overturned the states to have their marriages recognized and to force states to issue gender-neutral licenses, will not stop just at the clerk's office and the court's steps. They will want nice places for their nuptials, like churches and synagogues. Ah, but there is freedom of religion, right? Not so fast friend,...remember, Hegelian Dialectic would come into play again when SCOTUS hears the next suit affecting marriage and the churches. The thesis is that government cannot intrude on the free exercise of religion, even the use of church-owned facilities. The Antithesis is "all marriages are 'spiritual journeys' and should be accorded the use of religion's (i.e. church's) facilities. With an Obama Court (Ginsburg being the model) what do you think the Synthesis will be? Easy answer, that today's society must be protected from religion (not religion protected from the government). Therefore, religion has no right to speak-out against homosexuality, its practices and its desire for marriage recognition; and failing to allow for the use of the church's buildings will be interpreted as discrimination. Any oral or written statements to the contrary will be interpreted as a "hate-crime."
Now, let me return to the gay couple recently married in California, I believe that during the next year, their attorneys will be spending an enormous amount of prep time as they gear up for this big challenge. By 2013 or 2014, and after at least two appeals, SCOTUS will have rendered its decision. This will have taken about six years. Add six more years for litigation against churches and synagogues then by 2020 there will be absolutely no more "Freedom OF Religion," rather there will be "Freedom FROM Religion."
Consider this fact: I personally know of another gay couple who want a Virginia wedding license and a church wedding. A conservative Baptist Church down the road from where they live has a very nice sanctuary and fellowship hall they say they would one day like to utilize but the church's conservative stance will prohibit them from using their facilities. They are talking about suing under the banner of civil-rights violations and using the new anti-hate crimes laws which now protects gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered persons as a special class entitled to civil-rights. If they, or any other couple is serious about this, it appears that churches will be sued and under a GINSBERG MODEL majority SCOTUS, will be forced to allow their facilities to be used for gay marriages. Failing to follow the rule of law will, most definitely, result in the church's loss of their 501 (c) 3 status and any contributions made to the churches will not be tax-deductable. Tack on the huge attorney and court fees and you will have the dissolution of many places of worship.
It won't stop there. Since there will be no more freedom to practice religion, rather only freedom FROM religion, pastors and clergymen and women will be forced to perform such nuptials or face fines, jail time or worse. Since I live and am a clergyman in Virginia, let me use my state as an example of what I am saying. In the Circuit Courts of Virginia, I am "bonded" to perform marriage ceremonies which the state acknowledges to be legal. In the event the amendment to Virginia's constitution is overturned, in order for me to perform ceremonies which the state sanctions, I would no longer be allowed to use "discretion." Say, as the liberals have argued in California, gay marriages fall under the same category as interracial marriages, if I say, or if it is proved that I have performed a single interracial marriage (which I have), then I cannot use the "discretion" argument to deny performing a same-sex marriage. Moses married a black woman so I have no problem with interracial marriages - in fact, there is Biblical precedent. But when America is "FREED FROM religion, the Bible will have no relevance in arguments and use of discretion and practice of my religious beliefs will be ruled an infringement on the civil rights of a protected class.
One final thought should be given here: The anti-hate crimes bill which was sponsored by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry was co-signed by Barack Obama. This bill puts GLBT in the category of "protected" classes and subject to special acknowledgment under Civil Rights laws. The real danger is not me being forced to perform same sex marriages as I still retain the right to no-longer perform marriages - period. The problem is what I will and what I will not be allowed to preach from the pulpit. I cannot endorse candidates for public offices from the pulpit, even though most African-American pastors I know allow the NAACP to come in and endorse Democratic candidates all the time. So, quite possibly, I may be forbidden to preach that homosexuality, like adultery, incest, bestiality, etc. is a sin.
In the weeks to come I will have more to say concerning this hot-button issue. This, after all, is a matter of faith and government. Hence, the title of this blog.