The news is reporting the U.S. Supreme Court has found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
But that is not true.
That is not what happened at the U.S. Supreme Court at all.
In fact, there was no real effort at making a constitutional case against a duly enacted piece of legislation, passed overwhelmingly by the House and Senate with strong bipartisan support and signed by a Democratic Party president, Bill Clinton.
What actually happened at the Supreme Court was that five justices decided – and wrote in their opinion – that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage does so for no other reason than bigotry against homosexuals.
Do you think I'm exaggerating?
Read the words of the majority as written by Anthony Kennedy: "What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution."
Notice what he is explicitly saying here: It's because the purpose of this law was to demean people that it is unconstitutional.
Now is that correct?
Was that the purpose of DOMA?
If so, why did it have overwhelming support in the 1990s? Why does it still have broad support today, according to every poll, and why has nearly every state proposition on preserving marriage as an institution between one man and one woman been approved by the people?
Why on earth did Bill Clinton sign it – a law he now repudiates?
Why did Barack Obama oppose same-sex marriage just 18 months ago?
I could say this decision represents the height of judicial tyranny, but that would be an understatement.
I could say this decision was disingenuous, but that should be obvious.
I could say this decision overturns the tripartite nature of our constitutional republic, but nobody seems to care.
The president's happy. The ex-president who signed the legislation is happy. The Congress, which prefers to dodge its sole authority to make law, is happy. Homosexuals are happy – for the time being. That's all that matters.
Now where do we go from here?
It's obvious, isn't it?
The Supreme Court virtually declared an open season on those with whom the 5-4 majority disagree.
We are no longer relevant. What we think no longer counts. We are, after all, bigots who only want to demean homosexuals.
So when does the persecution begin?
When are we stripped of our citizen status, the right to vote, the right to bear arms and other constitutionally guaranteed liberties? Isn't that next?
If not, why not?
It was just 10 years ago to the day of this decision that the Supreme Court issued another sweeping ruling in the Lawrence v. Texas case. It struck down anti-sodomy laws in that state and, effectively, across the country.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in that case that the ruling would inevitably lead to same-sex marriage and polygamy. The cultural establishment scoffed at that opinion. It mocked Scalia. Why?
Because only 10 years ago, the notion of same-sex marriage was practically unheard of. It was a laughable proposition.
That's how quickly the 6,000-year-old institution of marriage was officially and arbitrarily redefined with the imprimatur of five high priests and priestesses wearing black robes.
Will it take another 10 years for the retribution against marriage defenders to begin?
I doubt it. My guess is the plans are already being drafted.
As for me and my house, however, we will continue to serve the Lord – the author of marriage and everything else.