Even though Friday’s re-definition of marriage by the U. S. Supreme Court was anticipated, I have found myself grieving over its implications for my country and for Western civilization itself. This radical decree will have a devastating affect on every dimension of culture.
I grieve most for what it will do to our children, our grandchildren and future generations. They will be taught that right is wrong and wrong is right, and that the teachings of Scripture are unreliable and inaccurate. How outrageous it is that boys and girls barely out of babyhood are already being introduced in some schools to perverse adult behavior.
Soon, public school textbooks throughout the country will be re-written and re-illustrated to conform to today’s ruling. It matters not that these revisions will contradict the beliefs and convictions of their parents. It will soon become the law of the land.
Many more vulnerable kids will grow up in homes with same-sex parents, obviously lacking either masculine or feminine role models. They are the real victims of the Court’s ruling.
Adults will suffer, too. I believe a barrage of court cases has already been planned against those who hold to politically incorrect views of marriage. Many of us will be dragged into court to be prosecuted or subjected to civil judgments. Some will lose their jobs, while others forfeit their businesses. Some will be persecuted and ridiculed and fined. Some may go to prison as the years unfold. Since same-sex marriage has now been determined to be a universal human right by the highest court in the land, it will trump religious liberty, churches, seminaries, Christian schools, businesses and a host of individual liberties. I also fear that judgment will befall this once great nation.
Here is the question of the hour. The organization I lead, Family Talk, is in accord with the National Organization for Marriage. This is an excerpt of its editorial released Friday:
We reject this decision and so will the American people. It represents nothing but judicial activism, legislating from the bench, with a bare majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court exercising raw political power to impose their own preferences on marriage when they have no constitutional authority to do so. It is a lawless ruling that contravenes the decisions of over 50 million voters and their elected representatives. It is a decision that is reminiscent of other illegitimate Court rulings such as Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade and will further plunge the Supreme Court into public disrepute.
Make no mistake about it: The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) [and my organization, Family Talk] and countless millions of Americans do not accept this ruling. Instead, we will work at every turn to reverse it.
The U.S. Supreme Court does not have the authority to redefine something it did not create. Marriage was created long before the United States and our constitution came into existence. Our constitution says nothing about marriage. The majority who issued today’s ruling have simply made it up out of thin air with no constitutional authority.
In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” Dr. Martin Luther King discussed the moral importance of disobeying unjust laws, which we submit applies equally to unjust Supreme Court decisions. Dr. King evoked the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that an unjust law or decision is one that is “a human law that is not rooted in eternal law or natural law.”
Today’s decision of the Supreme Court lacks both constitutional and moral authority. There is no eternal or natural law that allows for marriage to be redefined.
Today’s decision is by no means the final word concerning the definition of marriage; indeed it is only the beginning of the next phase in the struggle. NOM is committed to reversing this ruling over the long term and ameliorating it over the short term.
Speaking now for our organization, Family Talk, I believe it is time for this nation to hold State Constitutional Conventions, which would allow certain provisions within the Constitution to be reaffirmed. Among these possibilities would be a provision to set term limits on judges and justices. Another clause would limit the scope of their power. Unelected, unaccountable judges would no longer override the other two co-equal branches of government. Finally, language would be inserted to restore what Abraham Lincoln referred to in his Gettysburg Address as government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Wouldn’t that be a novel idea in the 21st century?
I’ll end my comments by quoting the final words from the Manhattan Declaration, written by the late Charles Colson, professor Robby George and Dr. Timothy George. They wrote:
“… Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.”
The consequences of the marriage ruling by Joseph Farah
The Roberts Court — harbinger to revolution? by Larry Klayman
‘Gay marriage’ ruling: Evil with a silver lining by Matt Barber
I fear judgment befalling America by James Dobson
Good intentions along the road to hell by Craige McMillan