The US Supreme Court has taken on so-called “gay” marriage this session and is certain to declare it a constitutional right UNLESS the people prove by unequivocal speech and action that they don’t want it.
Pro-family citizens need to face the facts. The swing vote on the court is still homosexualist Anthony Kennedy who has written every pro-homosexual majority opinion on “gay rights” for the past 20 years. In the first of these, Romer v Evans (1996), he stunningly declared that Colorado’s Amendment 2, which said homosexual conduct did not qualify a person for minority status in civil rights law, did not even rise to the level of a “legitimate state interest,” and therefore none of the normal analysis of its legal reasoning need be performed.
In Lawrence v Texas (2003), the challenge to the Texas anti-sodomy law, Kennedy stated that he could have ruled against the law narrowly, but instead ruled broadly to overturn Bower v Hardwick (1986) which had recognized the right of states to regulate sexual conduct in the public interest. His motive, he said, was to remove the “stigma” against homosexuality in America, declaring that public morality is not a legitimate basis for law.
The ruling on Lawrence was heralded by the left as an endorsement of “gay” marriage and within months then-Governor Mitt Romney surrendered without a fight, siding with a activist homosexualist judge and declaring homosexual marriage to be a fait accompli in Massachusetts.
Importantly, in Lawrence v Texas, Kennedy invoked the European Court of Human Rights as a legal authority. The global “elites” dream of a one-world government and sexual perversion is a tool of its implementation. It is the age-old strategy of Balaam who used illicit sexuality to turn the Israelites away from God to make them easier to subdue (Numbers 23-25). “Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned,” warned the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2).
In U.S. v Windsor (2013), which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act at the federal level, Kennedy wrote “The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.”
The Roe v Wade of Sodomy
Just before the Windsor ruling, Justice Ruth-Bader Ginsberg delivered a highly revealing speech at the University of Chicago Law School, saying that Roe was decided too soon: “my concern [was] that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly…[and] stopped the momentum that was on the side of change.”
The real purpose of that speech, in my view, was to signal to the political left that the Supremes were not going to declare a constitutional right to homosexual marriage in the Windsor decision as many expected. Instead, they would “put their stamp on the side of change and let that change develop in the political process.” Ginsberg deviously misrepresented the “elites’” plans because the change that followed Windsor was not by the political process but through the rulings of fellow homosexualist federal judges which began systematically invalidating state DOMAs, starting with the most conservative states. As always, the strategy of the cultural Marxists is to create the sense in the public of the inevitability of the success of their agenda — “the tide of history,” etc..
But Ginsberg’s speech also provided the clue to their main weakness — the presence of an active remnant of vocal opponents who do not accept the inevitability of “gay marriage.” Our one chance to prevent the death of marriage is to convince SCOTUS that their ruling will become the Roe v Wade of sodomy. That means we need to start fighting now.
The first line of attack is to demand the recusal of both Ginsberg and Kagan, who have performed “gay wedding” ceremonies, thus invalidating their claim to impartiality, which is a prerequisite to sitting as jurists on any matter. We need a continual presence in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts in every state demanding that Ginsberg and Kagan recuse themselves. A demand for recusal must be on the lips of every pro-family activist in America and a constant refrain on talk shows, social media and letters to the editor.
And if they fail to recuse themselves and by their votes establish a majority opinion “legalizing” homosexual marriage we must declare the ruling invalid and refuse to recognize it.
This article has a political tone, but the threat we face is primarily spiritual. Homosexual “marriage” represents the defeat of Biblical truth in America and the church must not sit silently by and acquiesce to it. In 2015 silence equals death to marriage, and by extension to Christian civilization.
Let’s not let that happen. If you share the Biblical worldview it is time to get out of the pews and into the streets.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.