You likely already saw my post featuring Rand Paul’s “maybe government should get out of the marriage business” story…but could the US Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision be good news for the 2nd Amendment? That story and much more is in the below roundup of reactions to the SCOTUS marriage decision.
Unfortunately, today’s ruling also expands federal power in a way that does no one – gay or straight – any real good. Gay marriages will now be subject to the same IRS nightmares that the rest of us have endured, while the 10th Amendment has been (to a debatable degree) weakened. Gays won a historic fight, but in the long run they may discover that it was in support of the wrong goal.
They should have been working toward an endgame that lessened state and federal intrusion into everyone’s life. The smarter play would have been to advocate elimination of the government’s licensing of anyone’s marriage.
All of us would be much better off returning marriage to the strictly religious significance it always should have had, while simultaneously implementing a flat or fair tax to eliminate federal financial discrimination. This would increase the separation of church and state, allow gay couples to find a religion that would offer them a spiritual union, and remove the IRS penalties – and benefits – of marriage. Questions about parenting, medical, and inheritance rights could be easily solved through other means and the size, scope, and power of the government would have been limited.
As reported by BearingArms.com, “If you’re following any of the various media outlets this morning, you’re probably aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has just extended gay marriage to all 50 states. The Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states. Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s ruling on Friday means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.”
Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.“
So, since I have moved from Florida to Texas, my concealed weapons permit is not only transferrable here, but all across the country, in all fifty states — or fifty-seven if you are President Obama. Yeehaw! Thanks to the LGBT community for making it very clear, my constitutionally declared right MUST be recognized in every state.
“Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage,” said Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, calling for an amendment to the Constitution allowing states to define marriage the way they see fit.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said that, while “this decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years,” the nation must abide by the ruling. “As we look ahead,” Rubio said, “it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood.”
Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson said that while he “strongly” disagrees with the court’s decision, “their ruling is now the law of the land. I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected.”
Wall Street Journal: A More Perfect Union? A triumph for gay rights but not for democracy.
His opinion’s sweeping language implies that belief in traditional marriage is invidious discrimination with no rational basis. This is strange considering that gay marriage wasn’t an issue until 20 or so years ago. Were President Obama or Hillary Clinton bigots before they reversed their political positions? What about the states that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment 147 years ago?
A better response—as practical politics and for civic comity—would be to support laws that protect the conscience rights of religious believers and faith-based institutions that do not honor same-sex marriages. The unfortunate truth is that the political left is rarely magnanimous in victory, and its activists may not be satisfied until the force of government stamps out private values and practices they find deplorable.
Breitbart.com: Scalia Dings California in Gay Marriage Dissent
In his now-infamous opinion, Scalia wrote that “a system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy,” adding:
Judges are selected precisely for their skills as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east-and west-coast states. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner, or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count).
Of course, California counted very much on Friday; the deciding vote in the Court’s decision on gay marriage came from Justice Anthony Kennedy, a California native.
While the next post may be more religious in nature, rather than political- I thought you may find it interesting…
DesiringGod.org: Why Homosexuality Is Not Like Other Sins
Homosexuality is not the only sin mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
It’s not the only sin mentioned, but it is different from all the rest, at least right now. At this moment in history, contrary to the other sins listed here, homosexuality is celebrated by our larger society with pioneering excitement. It’s seen as a good thing, as the new hallmark of progress.
2016 presidential hopeful Lindsey Graham told Chuck Todd that, if he were president, religious centers that don’t perform same-sex marriages will not lose their tax-exempt statuses during Sunday’s broadcast of “Meet the Press.”
Additionally, Graham stated he does not think Republicans should include the call for a constitutional amendment, “defining marriage between one man and one woman,” as part of the 2016 party platform.
On ABC’s “This Week” Sunday, host George Stephanopoulos asked Huckabee if he would advocate for civil disobedience following Friday’s Supreme Court ruling that made same-sex marriage legal nationwide
“I don’t think a lot of pastors and Christian schools are going to have a choice. They either are going to follow God, their conscience and what they truly believe is what the scripture teaches them, or they will follow civil law,” Huckabee said.
“They will go the path of Dr. Martin Luther King, who in his brilliant essay the letters from a Birmingham jail reminded us, based on what St. Augustine said, that an unjust law is no law at all. And I do think that we’re going to see a lot of pastors who will have to make this tough decision,” he continued.
Washington Examiner: Supreme Court lets Obama administration say words don’t mean what they say
In the most prominent, King v. Burwell, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a 6-3 majority, ruled that the words “established by the state” mean “established by the state or the federal government.”
In a second decision, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority, ruled that the omission in the 1968 Fair Housing Act of words banning acts that have a disparate impact on people of different races didn’t matter. The plaintiff could bring a lawsuit anyway.
Both cases were victories for the Obama administration and for the proposition that the executive branch can rewrite laws to say what they want them to say.