More Thoughts on SCOTUS and Same-Sex Marriage
John R. Houk
© May 30, 2015
I belong to a secret Facebook group pertaining the First
Amendment. A comment was left on this group pertaining a SlantRight 2.0 post entitled “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations”.
Since the group is listed as “secret” I am hesitant to reveal the exact
Facebook name or the name of the commenter. My sense is that those who post
there may not wish to be harassed for their opinions. Thus I will identify the
commenter as JP for anonymity reasons.
Just as a brief synopsis of “Arise Christians against SCOTUS
Violations” that post was about then future oral arguments pertaining to
homosexual same-sex marriage being a States’ Rights issue rather than a Federal
Government issue. If the supporters of Family and Biblical Values are to win
validation of their arguments before SCOTUS then Leftists and homosexual
activists will be prohibited from making same-sex marriage a Federally mandated
national law and would place that decision in the hands of each individual
State of America’s Union. This would reinstate State Laws that made it a matter
of the rule of law that marriage would be defined as between man and a woman
rather than Adam and Steve or Adriana and Eve.
With that in mind here is JP’s comment edited with
spellcheck because comments made on the fly are often grammatically flawed (and even though I also I am guilty of on the
fly grammatically flawed comments it is a pet peeve of mine):
I don't understand why you
reference the Old Testament for Christian Canon. Romans 10:4 – “For Christ is
the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." KJV
(Comment by JP)
The common mistake people make is that the Scriptures
preached on by Early Christians and Jesus Himself were based on the Old
Testament. And another comment mistake by Jim within Romans 10:4 is the word
“end”. The Koine Greek word used in
the days of the Apostle Paul was “telos”.
That word has a more versatile meaning than just “end”. The explanation I found
on the Denominational website from the United Church of God – an
International Association:
In Romans 10:4, Paul's words
are translated: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone
who believes.” Regrettably, most translators render the Greek word telos simply
as “end” instead of giving Paul's intended meaning of that word in this
context. Reasoning incorrectly that faith makes the law void, they have adopted
an illogical assumption that Paul plainly rejected in Romans 3:31. This
passage reads: “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly
not! On the contrary, we establish the law.”
To discover the proper translation
of a word that can be used in more than one way, its context has to be
understood correctly before any effort is made to determine the right nuance of
meaning that the author intended. Here is a simple example. One might ask a
college student, “To what end are you attending college?” The
word “end” in that context would refer to the “objective” or “goal” the student
has in mind. Receiving a degree would be only the “end result” of
his college years of learning, not the end to his ability or desire
to learn.
The Greek word telos, translated
“end” in Romans 10:4, can convey variations in meaning, including “'the
aim or purpose' of a thing” (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old
and New Testament Words, 1985, “End, Ending”). This is very clear in
the New King James Version's rendering of 1 Timothy 1:5, where telos is
properly translated as purpose in the clause “the purpose of
the commandment is love.” In this same verse the NRSV translates telos as
“aim” and the NIV renders it as “goal.”
Paul uses telos in Romans
10:4 to convey that the objective or goal of the law—the
“aim or purpose” of it—is to point us to the mind and character of Jesus Christ
(Galatians 4:19; Philippians 2:5).
Jesus Christ, the living Word
of God, is a perfect replica of what God's law teaches. Pointing us to His
character and work is the aim” of the law. Rendering of telos as
“end” in Romans 10:4 distorts Paul's intended
meaning—something Peter forcefully warns us not to do (2 Peter 3:15-16).
[What Did Paul Mean by 'Christ Is the End of
the Law'? From UCG.org; 2/2/11]
The point is “the
end” does not convey termination but rather the goal as in completeness. Christ
completes the Law of the Old Testament by His Blood shed in death convicted
under false accusations and human greed and arose from death three days later
fulfilling the reasons for the existence of the Law. This does not make the
commands of the irrelevant but encompassed in Blood bought Redemption which
eliminates the penalties for breaking the Law.
In full disclosure
about the secret Facebook group, at the time I posted these thoughts on this
First Amendment group I had forgotten the secret group’s purpose was a bit more
specific than all the aspects of the First Amendment. When I shared these
Christian concepts to the secret Facebook group the main focus of this group
was Islam in relation to the First Amendment. I posted “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations”
straying from the groups designed purpose. I chose the First Amendment issue of
Free Speech and the Religious Freedom to
my opinion allowing Christian Americans to practice their Biblical faith which
finds the homosexual lifestyle abhorrent before the sight of God Almighty. Thus
on a State to State basis a plurality of Americans could vote individually as a
Tenth Amendment Right on the definition of Marriage since the subject is not
specifically addressed by the U.S. Constitution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to
the people.
As I shared the
secret group I posted on focused on Islam described in the right hand column
as:
DESCRIPTION
For the creation & promotion of an amendment of the First Amendment
which will permit proscribing Islam by law.
First Rough:
Any institution which recruits or retains members by force, seeks to supplant this constitution with its canon law, promotes offensive warfare or was created for the personal emolument of its founder is not protected under the free exercise clause of the first amendment and may be proscribed by law.
First Rough:
Any institution which recruits or retains members by force, seeks to supplant this constitution with its canon law, promotes offensive warfare or was created for the personal emolument of its founder is not protected under the free exercise clause of the first amendment and may be proscribed by law.
There is very little chance of congressional passage and state ratification,
but if properly publicized, the proposal will cause Muslims to s**t bricks,
exposing themselves and their cult to full scrutiny.
On a personal level
I have no problems with Muslims practicing a peaceful Islam that excises the
portions of the Quran regarded as the very words of their Allah deity that
commands violent Jihad in the present time forcing non-Muslims to submit to
Islam by conversion. OR if choosing not to convert then submitting to the
superiority of Islam over one’s own religious beliefs on penalty of offending
Islam, the Allah deity or Mohammed resulting in a death sentence, violent
punishment or imprisonment. Also Muslims should endeavor to transform (as opposed to the current purist Islamic
reform flowing globally) the Hadith and Sira that supports the violent
portions of the Quran advocating present time death, physical punishment or
imprisonment for rejecting and thus offending Islam. Also Christians and
Americans in general should realize that the Quran recorded in Mecca prior to
Mohammed fleeing to Medina are peaceful and tolerant of non-Muslim faiths
especially calling for an appreciation for Jews and Christians, BUT from Medina
onward the Quran recorded is violently hostile toward non-Muslims which singles
out forced submission of Jews and Christians who don’t convert with an OR ELSE
caveat in the Medina suras. AND Christians and Americans should be aware that
the Quran IS NOT recorded in chronological order – the Mecca and Medina suras
are interspersed according to size rather than time frame.
In moving along back
to the homosexual lifestyle pertaining to same-sex marriage vs. Traditional
Marriage let it be known I probably should not have shared that particular post
to the secret Facebook group focused on Islam in relation to the First
Amendment; ergo I must say to my fellow members of the group I say, “Oops”.
This is an apology to
the secret group, but I stand with God Almighty to assert a homosexual
lifestyle is an abomination to His Presence. This is when I typically a
homosexual activist claim something idiotic like, “God made me Gay and hence I was born Gay.” I find the homosexual
activist assertion idiotic not based on science, but rather based on the God
inspired Word in the Holy Bible.
Homosexuality
condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Thank God the Father emptied His
Divine characteristics to be born as a man from a woman in Jesus Christ the Son
of God. In Christ the penalty of the Law that is in the Old Testament has been
rendered complete in Jesus. The penalty is not terminated but postponed in this
life. The Last Judgment determines each person’s final eternity based on the
heart-faith in following the Way of the Risen Savior thus determining if their
name is in the Book of Life or not. Since Christ rose from the dead the final
penalty or blessing occurs in that Last Judgment. That which is important that
God finds homosexuality an abomination in the old covenant and the new covenant
sealed in Christ’s Blood:
Leviticus
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a
woman. It is an abomination.
13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a
woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to
death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Romans
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of
God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to
uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among
themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for
the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is
blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile
passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against
nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the
natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men
committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error
which was due. (Leviticus 18: 22; 20: 13; Romans 1: 18-19 NKJV)
If SCOTUS rules in
favor of homosexual activism making same-sex marriage a part of the rule of law
without the path set forth in the U.S. Constitution, then SCOTUS is
unconstitutionally enacting a law that should either be left to the described
Amendment process through the vehicle of Congress and/or the States.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the
legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for
proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and
purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of
three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths
thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the
Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth
clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without
its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
TAKE NOTE
that the Supreme Court of the United States and the Executive Branch are not a
part of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
The only way that
SCOTUS can act constitutionally to assuage the lot of homosexuals is to rule
that it is more than a lifestyle but is a genetic occurrence. Even though you
will homosexuals claim biological science is in their favor the actual science
is hardly concrete in people being genetically born a homosexual. And
ironically committed homosexuals are not even united on the OPINION of
genetics.
If clear cut
genetics is ever proven then science might be created by the heterosexuals that
are actually needed to make children to engineer genes or the workings of inner
anatomical organs responsible for sexual preference to eradicate the homosexual
gene. Such genetic engineering would not fall under the category of murder but
on the medical procedures that Leftists so often demand for women called “Choice”.
Homosexual activists
point to the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for claiming specific rights for
homosexuals just as any other citizen of the United States. I’m not a lawyer
but it seems if homosexuality is a choice rather than a genetic occurrence then
how can the Fourteenth Amendment be applied to assign specific rights as equal to
genetically born individuals?
People are not born
a Democrat or Republican. People are not a Communist or a Capitalist.
People born into a
human race is mentioned into the Constitution. Ironically people are not into a
specific genetic religion, but they choose a religion or atheism or I could
care less. BUT the Constitution specifically gives genetically born human beings
the Constitutional Freedom to choose a religion or no religion.
NO WHERE in the
Constitution are people who choose to be a homosexual have named specific
rights for choosing that as a lifestyle to be respected by race, creed,
religion or lack of religion.
The Constitution
does provide for independent ideology in the First Amendment with Free Speech.
The Constitution does not provide marriage between a same religion, a different
religion, a religious person and an atheist, only Democrats can marry, only
Republicans can and I think you get the idea. People marry as people.
If a majority of
people in a given State view male/female marriage as natural law then marriage
can so be entered. Frankly if homosexuals choose to enter into some kind of
contractual mutual obligations and expectations I don’t see anything
unconstitutional with that choice. But defining same-sex marriage a natural
part of nature is ungodly in the sight of God. How do I know that? HE SAID SO
IN THE HOLY BIBLE.
America is a secular
nation founded under the platform of Christian Religious Liberty. Forcing a
Christian to accept something as lawful is unconscionable and according to the
First Amendment infringes on the right of a Christian to practice their faith
which is unconstitutional.
The Fourteenth
Amendment was enacted to after the Civil War to ensure liberated
African-American slaves had the same protections and rights as pre-Civil War
free non-slaves. In other words the Fourteenth Amendment dealt with civil
protections and civil rights based on the genetics of human beings not on the
choices of aberrant lifestyles.
Here are insightful
words about the Original Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment:
The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment
was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in
the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to
require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the
new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!
Some may say, “Who cares what they believed in 1868 about homosexuality?
We’ve evolved since then.”
That’s addressed by the second reason: laws and words have specific
scopes and meanings. They don’t have unlimited flexibility as liberal justices
tend to think. Neither the intent nor the text of the Constitution requires the
states to redefine marriage. If the people of the United States have “evolved”
on the issue, then the Constitution provides them with a very clear and fair
way for the document to intelligently “evolve”—they need to convince a
supermajority of federal and state legislatures to amend the Constitution.
That’s the very reason our Constitution has an amendment process!
…
… the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states
from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women
didn’t even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the
“equal protection” clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district
courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are
we to believe that “equal protection” does not guarantee a woman’s right to
vote but does guarantee a woman’s right to marry another woman?
…
… Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite
sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they
may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights,
then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don’t
have equal rights. The “born
that way” justification doesn’t work either because that same
justification could make any desired arrangement “marriage,” which means the
logic behind it is absurd. …
…
Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex marriage? No, the U.S.
Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you
believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution. READ
ENTIRETY (Why the 14th
Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage; By Frank Turek; Townhall.com; 3/17/15)
Here is the
Fourteenth Amendment of which SCOTUS will issue an opinion on same-sex
marriage:
Passed by Congress June 13,
1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States
according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in
each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any
election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the
United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers
of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the
male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of
the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in
rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced
in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the
whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military,
under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an
oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a
member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any
State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in
insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove
such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States,
authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and
bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or
obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United
States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such
debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article. (The
US Constitution: 14th Amendment; website author
- Fred Elbel; 14thAmendment.us;
Copyright 2007-2014 - all rights reserved.)
Here is some truth
to read pertaining the homosexual activist propaganda that a majority of
American voters support same-sex marriage:
The headlines of most opinion polls and news stories say the same thing:
Gay marriage is inevitable, by the people’s choice.
…
…
In February, a CNN/ORC survey of more than 1,000 people found 63 percent
support for same-sex marriage.
This “supermajority of Americans” reflects the constant growing and
widening support for the nuptials, said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to
Marry.
In recent days, USA Today, The Washington Post and ABC News also have
declared an end to the national battle on marriage.
“There’s no turning back,” said an April 19 article in USA Today, citing
its poll of 1,000 adults taken with Suffolk University. Some 51 percent of
those adults said they favored allowing gay couples to marry, with 35 percent
opposed and 14 percent undecided.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Thursday found 61 percent
support for same-sex marriage — with 78 percent support in the under-30 age
group.
A Public Religion Research Institute survey of 40,000 Americans — which
also found majority support for same-sex marriage — revealed …
…
In contrast, an amicus brief filed at the Supreme Court says it is
“simply not true” that large majorities of Americans support a redefinition of
marriage.
Real opinions are made at voting booths, and in 39 elections, in which
nearly 85 million votes were cast in 35 states, more than 51 million people
voted to keep marriage as a man-woman union, campaign and polling analyst Frank
Schubert and the National Organization for Marriage said in their brief in
Obergefell v. Hodges.
With a margin of 60.9 percent to 39.1 percent for traditional marriage,
that is “an overwhelming landslide in American politics,” they wrote.
Although some polls indicate wide support for same-sex marriage, others
show majority opposition to it or public support starting to drop, the brief
said.
…
Also, many polls showing support for same-sex marriage may be worded to
catch a “yes.”
“People generally want to be ‘for’ something, rather than ‘against’
something,” the National Organization for Marriage brief said.
Another factor, intended or not, is the “priming” of people with
questions about legal rights before asking them about the right to marry.
Without such priming, the Gallup Poll’s support for same-sex marriage dipped by
an average of 6 to 7 points, the brief said.
… READ ENTIRETY (Gay marriage defies opinions of American majority, legal brief tells Supreme Court; By Cheryl Wetzstein; Washington Times; 4/23/15)
What you should
notice in that Washington Times article is that polls controlled by a Left-oriented
Mainstream Media supports the agenda to restructure Family Values in America to
reflect a decimation of Biblical Morality to be replaced with a Secular
Humanism in which a mercurial humanity decides which morals have value and
which morals are pointlessly archaic.
When a majority of
American voters lean to defining American culture to an antichrist motif
rendering Christianity irrelevantly archaic that will be the real beginning of
the end of Constitutional Liberty America’s Founding Fathers intended for the
United States of America.
JRH 5/30/15
*************************
No comments:
Post a Comment