Building the Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage…
(seventh in a series of articles)
By Joe Miller
Within the last couple of years of our nation’s 239-year history, left-wing lawyers clothed in black robes have imposed their twisted view of law and morality on the country with breathtaking speed.
As recently as 2010, over two-thirds of these United States had banned homosexual marriage, with Americans overwhelming rejecting same-sex marriage at the ballot box. Incredibly, federal judges have arrogantly reversed the decisions of voters in most of those states, leaving just five states nationwide with bans in place, undisturbed by court ruling.
Trending: Is the Church Becoming Too Political?
(There are 13 states in which homosexual marriage is still banned. However, for eight of those states, courts have overturned the bans but have stayed their reversal until appeals have run.)
And now, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to void the few remaining pro-traditional marriage laws, nationwide.
How did a country, founded on religious freedom by largely God-fearing, Bible-reading patriots reach this point? First, despite the federal judiciary’s near full-body embrace of homosexual marriage, such sexual couplings are not equally accepted by ordinary Americans.
To be sure, attitudes are changing – in part due to the increasing inclination to look to “the civil law” rather than God for morality – but the American people by and large reject the idea that any marriage other than that of one man to one woman is a good idea.
The elites have a completely different view. All one need do is look at Hollywood’s hyper-evangelical effort to indoctrinate television viewers and movie goers through the ubiquitous insertion of out-of-place subplots portraying loving, happy homosexuals. One can’t even enjoy watching the apocalyptic showdown between remnants of the human race and hordes of zombies in AMC’s blockbuster Walking Dead without being interrupted by homosexual passion.
The news media plays the same game, with its unrelenting agenda to force cultural acceptance of homosexual marriage. From the predictable prophets of the left, to those who we had once thought were on the right like Fox’s Shepard Smith, almost all champion homosexuality, and suggest no qualitative or moral difference between heterosexual and same-sex marriage. “Family friendly” drag queen contests on military posts sponsored by federal dollars are celebrated.
Families with children raised by transgender, bisexual, or homosexual parents are presented as normal. Counseling to address gender identity issues or same-sex attraction is trashed as unscientific and hateful – even, in some places like California, outlawed altogether.
Political elites – both Democrats and Republicans – are no different.
Republicans like Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner will occasionally throw a rhetorical bone to their constituents on the issue, but they’ll never direct real political capital toward efforts to promote traditional marriage or to preserve states’ rights on the issue. Looking at the number of homosexuals working as congressional staff, the acceptance of federal efforts to celebrate homosexuality, and other telling factors, all reflect where the political elites are personally on this issue.
And their wholesale silence over the impending Supreme Court decision on homosexual marriage is especially telling.
In the face of a population that has historically embraced traditional marriage and rejected same-sex relationships, what has empowered the homosexual-pushing political and media elites to such an extent that allies of true marriage are running for cover?
Without a doubt, there are a number of enablers, but the federal judiciary is a central driver. As other articles (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, and Part VI) in the “Building the Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage” series have convincingly explained, the federal judiciary has largely abandoned any pretext of following the drafters’ intent with respect to the Constitution and its Amendments as applied to same-sex marriage.
Apparently, these judges believe the oath they have taken requires no deference to the Constitution’s plain meaning.
Granted, some judges believe that they are compelled to follow the dictates of superior (higher) courts, even if those decisions violate the written Constitution. This is a poor excuse, as the judge’s oath is to the Constitution, not to some twisted interpretation of it.
While indefensible, this approach stands in contrast to the illegitimacy of other members of the federal judiciary who spin dozens of pages of judicial decisions, ginning up creative and largely illogical reasons for why constitutional language – drafted when homosexuality was criminalized throughout the United States – somehow now compels protection of same-sex marriage and sodomy.
What is even more troublesome are those Justices who have such zeal for the homosexual agenda that they have made supportive public statements and have even voluntarily officiated at homosexual marriages – despite knowing that the question of homosexual marriage would be presented before them for future decision.
There is a Code of Conduct under which federal judges – including U.S. Supreme Court Justices – are bound to comply. (Justice Kennedy stated on March 14, 2013 that he and the other justices of the Supreme Court consider the Code of Conduct to be “absolutely binding.”) Canon 3A(6) of that Code of Conduct requires that a judge “not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.”
Canon 2A of the same Code provides that a judge “should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Finally, a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. sec. 455(a), further mandates that a federal judge “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have violated these standards. Both justices have presided over same-sex weddings despite their knowledge of pending federal homosexual marriage cases.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.