Beyond Same-Sex Marriage A Dangerous Precedent Has Been Set by SCOTUS!

The Cross Shows Love not EqualAmid all the fuss about the same sex marriage hoopla, one of the Supreme Court Justices made some rather damning statements regarding his fellow court members who voted for overturning key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA). The very least of this is Justice Antonin Scalia’s astute observation:

This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America. Source Scalia’s Dissent:

Justice Scalia points it out – they had NO POWER TO DECIDE THIS CASE! Yet five of the nine did so and opened the veritable Pandora’s Box! This issue has far reaching implications, and Justice Scalia recognized the abuse of the Court’s power! Scalia’s dissenting opinion barely scratches the surface of dangers of where this can lead! Is it just about same sex marriage and destroying the traditional family? No! It is about the entire LGBTQ crowd demanding their recognition as a group comparable to one of race, sex, or ethnicity! This swings the legal doors wide open for them to claim their rights as if they are inalienable without consideration to morality – because now as a society the court has overruled us all! Anything goes with regards to sexuality!

Justice Scalia points out what was done by his fellow justices deciding to rule on the DoMA case was nothing short of overruling the Constitution. I whole-hardheartedly agree! This is just the sort of intrusion the Constitution is supposed to prevent yet here we are!

Whether you want to call it subversion or a kind of coup d’état – that’s what it is! With one case the rule of “We the People” has been overthrown by the opinions of five of our appointed Supreme Court Justices! It is wrong and I for one am going to use my freedom of speech (if I still can keep it) to speak out against the reprehensible acts of these justices overruling our Constitution.

Justice Scalia called court decision, “jaw dropping” and demonstrates how the court is seeing itself standing “enthroned” – wow!

More from Justice Scalia,

But wait, the reader wonders—Windsor won below, and so cured her injury, and the President was glad to see it. True, says the majority, but judicial review must march on regardless, lest we “undermine the clear dictate of the separation-of-powers principle that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role.

This image of the Court would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter. They knew well the dangers of “primary” power, and so created branches of government that would be “perfectly coordinate by the terms of their common commission,” none of which branches could “pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” The Federalist, No. 49, p. 314 (C. Rossitered. 1961) (J. Madison). The people did this to protect themselves. They did it to guard their right to self-rule against the black-robed supremacy that today’s majority finds so attractive. So it was that Madison could confidently state, with no fear of contradiction, that there was nothing of “greater intrinsic value” or “stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty” than a government of separate and coordinate powers. Id., No. 47, at 301. Source: Scalia’s Dissent

For those of you reading this and saying well they cannot do this, this is the United States of America!? Well to put it bluntly – they just did!

Four of the nine Justices did have some common sense and voted against this new form of American government of, “We the Supreme Court” those that voted for this should have their resignations demanded since they have violated the oath to protect the Constitution itself. I recognize my voice is a cry in the wind but maybe if this FINALLY wakes our nation up to the fact we are being subverted by what is a homosexual agenda maybe we can preserve some of our dignity as a nation before immoral anarchy becomes the rule of law for this once great nation!

This may have some follow-up as I continue to read Scalia’s dissenting opinion and as I try to digest everything said by those scurrilous justices who voted for this decision. I promise you readers, there is a lot more here that should cause any moral person concern and leave any Bible believing Christian aghast!

John Beardsley
II Cor 10:5

9 thoughts on “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage A Dangerous Precedent Has Been Set by SCOTUS!

  1. “This swings the legal doors wide open for them to claim their rights as if they are inalienable without consideration to morality…”

    So what you are saying is that people shouldn’t be able to claim their rights without going through an approval process moderated by your definition of morality?

      1. @jbeard777 Amen!!! They just don’t want to see it that way though. They “think” that we should go by their “new” definition and so they twist it by saying it’s “your definition of morality” that’s the problem. Perversion twists things so much, that’s why it’s perverse I guess.

  2. The DOMA ruling a dangerous precedent? Hardly. This is far from the first time the Supreme Court has ruled “democratically adopted legislation” unconstitutional. In fact between 1789 and 2010, the Supreme Court ruled 165 acts of Congress as unconstitutional, not to mention hundreds of state and municipal statutes and ordinances. For a Justice of the Supreme Court to be so misinformed of his own court’s history and authority is appalling. Or perhaps he’s merely playing on the fears of a misinformed public.

    1. Richard, you are missing the point this dangerous precedent is unlike many in the past, if the Justices “for” had stopped at a point before endorsing homosexuals as a protected group/class merely stating DoMa is unconstitutional would be one thing – the Supreme Court went MUCH further making homosexuals a protected class AND redefining marriage. Below I am quoting those Justices FOR striking DoMA and there is much more:
      “This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality.”

      This is the court creating a class of people based on a chosen sexual behavior repugnant to many in our society, and they treat marriage as something “evolving” based on a growing understanding of the “meaning of equality.” This is a paradigm shift from what our society has recognized as marriage as if this issue could be equated to the civil rights movement, what they have decided for all of us is nothing short of a departure from the sanctity of marriage based on some arbitrary evolving, “meaning of equality.” Marriage has always been recognized as the union of a man and a woman, based on this one case marriage is whatever consenting adults decide to have a union with and polygamists will be happy now too.

      As for DoMA, it never should have been an act that was signed, the whole thing should have been tossed out because anyone who understands marriage knows it is between a man and a woman. In essence this act signed into law in 1996 helped the homosexual agenda and now due to how it was mishandled and manipulated, homosexuals (LGBTQ) now have what they have been after all along – recognition as a protected class. This is part of the reason why it is an unusual and a dangerous precedent and will be used to make a host of other lawsuits to bring about a change – further destroying the traditional family unit. A family can be redefined where not only could it be two mothers and fathers but both or any other mixture along with the transgender and others who proudly call themselves “ queer.” – Essentially the court has stripped us of our right to reject these other definitions as wrong, sinful and immoral! This sadly understates how bad it is and Justice Scalia only addresses the tip of this iceberg. It is because Scalia IS informed he is giving a clarion call to those who need to defend traditional marriage and family from those abusing their power on the court in advancing the LGBTQ agenda.

      1. I would argue that the quote you provided to support your contention that “the Supreme Court went MUCH further making homosexuals a protected class AND redefining marriage.” is out of context and inaccurate. Unfortunately you failed to include the preceding sentence: “In authorizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages, New York sought to give further protection and dignity to that bond. For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status.” Clearly, the court was commenting on the status afforded same-sex married couples by the state of New York and its (the state’s) intentions for full equality under state law. The court was not independently creating “a protected class AND redefining marriage.” Marriage was “redefined” by individual states already. In fact (and ironically in light of your contention) the court’s decision to strike down DOMA sought to rid the state of a “class” of people effectively created by DOMA, namely same-sex, legally married couples who were unable to enjoy full benefits under federal law. The striking down of DOMA does not create a “class” of married people, it makes all legal marriages equal under state and federal governments and therefore “classless”. I would suggest your argument has created a bit of straw-man here.

        You can argue the morality of same-sex marriage, but that is a separate issue. You can argue whether same-sex marriage should be legal under state law, but that is another issue. The Supreme Court decision was a sound one based on principals of law, therefore upholding the Constitution.

        Furthermore, it continues to puzzle me when so many people conflate same-sex marriage with “destroying the traditional family unit”. I have yet to hear cogent reasoning as to how this destruction actually occurs. If my next door neighbours – (hypothetically) two women who have lived together for years – get married and thus, under law are entitled to every benefit my own wife and I enjoy, how is that in any way destroying my family unit? Making an existing same-sex family suddenly legal does not in any way alter my family.

        It’s also interesting to me that conservatives are constantly railing about the government and bureaucracy and laws interfering in people’s lives, yet here is an example of attempts to diminish said interference and they are arguing for more government control.

        It’s also interesting that conservatives are all about “democracy” and “the will of the people”, but the will of the people is clearly changing and conservatives are in an uproar. I guess they support the concept of the will of the people only when it’s their will. I suppose the question then becomes – do you want to live in a democracy or a theocracy?

      2. Not a straw-man at all unless we live in the United States of New York. Here with the Court overruling DOMA they are changing the recognized definition of marriage from being only one man and one woman historically and traditionally – so the Court in their misguided decision to give one lesbian couple where one partner died an inheritance because the state of New York recognized their “marriage” in Canada. Redefining equality is that this is all about, claiming that same sex couples are equals to married couples of the opposite sex. You are twisting things right along with those voting “for” this sort of inequality in the name of equality.

        RH: “You can argue the morality of same-sex marriage, but that is a separate issue. You can argue whether same-sex marriage should be legal under state law, but that is another issue. The Supreme Court decision was a sound one based on principals of law, therefore upholding the Constitution.”

        Morality is not a separate issue, social mores are definitely being tossed for the laws to be reshaped and redefined to fit the LGBTQ mold. – No one supporting traditional family values wants any part of it and why it was not a sound decision and why there is a divided court. You wonder why so many conflate same-sex marriage with destroying the family unit this is part of why. It is not just about two people who lived together for years but all that has for millennia been the norm in society and much more. A same-sex family is a misnomer created by the LGBTQ community and its supporters who seek to remake our society to fit their mold.

        As for the laws, I stated we should never have needed DOMA. Because DOMA was created it gave the LGBTQ crowd a target and a strategy to gain protected class status for their chosen behavior. In spite of assurances that the other parts of DOMA are intact, that domino of state’s rights is endangered because the definition of male-female marriage in DOMA was tossed. One is predicated on the other and the next few years will likely bear that out with lawsuits challenging it.

        I disagree with you in the strongest of terms this is not about laws and just the will of the people, yes our nation has changed but not for the better some things need to remain static and unchanging as the truths of the Bible. A theocracy? I know of many pushing for that sort of Dominionist/Reconstructionist nonsense but that really is another topic. I am talking about what is right and decent – redefining a societal norm as the court has done (whether or not you agree) is what has occurred, again I guess we’ll see as other cases work their way through the courts.

        Same-sex marriage or for other chosen behaviors would have been considered unthinkable 100 years ago much less when our nation was founded. We should have no need of DOMA or what ultimately is needed, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was supposed to do, I knew it would eventually fail but did not see how it would get twisted by this recent court decision. Homosexual behavior was considered immoral by our society as well as the rest of the chosen behaviors of the LGBTQ crowd.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s