This past week we saw the scales of the checks and balances system skew heavily with the judicial branch once again weighing in to legislate rather than interpret the laws and/or Constitution. The high court handed down a decision on same-sex marriage electing to vacate court decisions based on the Defense of Marriage Act which was passed by the Congress handily and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. The focus of the act was to stipulate that marriage in America is recognized as the union between a man and a woman.
Now, the high court did not strike down the legislation on the basis of it being unconstitutional. Rather, the liberal elements of the court, in a five-four decision made it clear that those responsible for enacting the Defense of Marriage Act were doing so only to discriminate, harass, and otherwise persecute any individual who desired to enter into a same-sex marriage bond. Essentially, the high court holds the position that Congress and then President Bill Clinton enacted a law on the books of the United States aimed solely at persecuting a specific sector of the American society.
If that decision by the court was not enough, President Obama immediately came out praising the findings of the court. At what point does one take on the label “hypocrite”? If we go back and check the record and the sound bites, we can easily find that Obama was opposed to same-sex marriage less than two years ago. Now, he is all for it. Here again, we see a serious character flaw in this person occupying the White House in that he has no moral convictions which he is not willing to trade for votes and party dominance in political situations.
If it is possible to top Obama’s behavior, Bill Clinton did it hands down by immediately stepping to the microphone accompanied by his “I-Wanna-Be-President” wife, Hilary, and also praised the decision of the court. This is the man, who as president, signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law and no one was holding a gun to his head at the time. But, and that is one big “BUT”, Hilary is expected to throw her hat into the ring for the 2016 presidential race so she and her potential “First-Man” must get themselves aligned “politically correct” prior to having the gloves come off. Here again….no moral character but still they want to portray themselves as the best choice for the future of America. These are sick people, or should I say “sickening people”?
The concept of marriage has been with mankind for thousands upon thousands of years. Over that time, the writings of the Bible have expressed a religious sanctity of the bond between man and woman in marriage. The Bible has also been quite clear as to its position in terms of same-sex relations up to and including marriage. There is also the moral aspect of what society considers “acceptable behavior”. These elements rolled together form the basis of our approach to marriage over the history of mankind. Now, we have select groups who feel that this definition formed in terms of religious and moral principles has only one real focus and that is to limit and discriminate. Essentially, the findings of the high court confirm that the court believes that not only those who legislated the Defense of Marriage Act but also those who have perpetuated the religious and moral beliefs concerning marriage do so only to discriminate, harass , and persecute those who desire same-sex unions. Thus, here we are centuries into mankind’s existence, only to have a court of nine rule that the religious and moral fabric of our society is nothing more than a manipulative effort to omit certain factions from participating in the institution of marriage.
Let us be clear here. No one has ever been denied the opportunity to marry if they came forward in the spirit of the legal and moral definition of the term. Certainly other approaches have been blocked and for good reason. How can we have laws and enforce them if we do not know or limit the definition of the action taking place? This is not meant to discriminate, it is meant to define and the parameters set forth keep the definition of “marriage” within both the religious and moral boundaries of our society. Are we supposed to re-define the term “bank robbery” just because someone needs money?
Those who are proponents of same-sex unions want the religious aspects just tossed aside along with the moral ones. They simply want a law that defines their union as a “marriage”. Of course, they cite examples to justify this action relative to estate laws, inheritance, job benefits, and the current American tax code regarding marriage. In other words, because two people of the same sex decide they want to be together and have all the benefits of a “marriage”, the definition of “marriage” must be changed in terms of the legal aspects. Well, guess what? Because we live in a nation in which our governance is very much rooted in both religious and moral principles, changing something legally generally reverses the path and suggests that it is also both acceptable in the eyes of religion and as a behavior in terms of our moral values. For any one of principle, character, and faith, that is a very hard pill to swallow and many do not plan to attempt it.
The question now arises, “where does it stop?” Well, you say, it stops here. Those pushing for same-sex marriage recognition got what they want…it stops here. Not so fast. What about those who want even more? Where do we define the limits of “marriage” now? Is it a union between two human beings in which no animal may engage? Why not? If society is already seen as “discriminating, harassing, and persecuting those of the “same-sex” orientation, then why is that rationale not worthy of being extended to those who would find it more rewarding to engage in more exotic unions? Why should they be left out given the stretch which has already been made?
Those on the courts can call this anything they want but their actions in interpreting the definition of marriage to be primarily focused as effort to discriminate, harass, and persecute is simply utter ignorance on the part of the justices who made up the majority opinion. This is an act of contrition which is carried out as a visible symbol of “acceptance” which is exactly what those in the “same-sex” movement were determined to accomplish in the first place…legislated and judicial acceptance. This is what we get when we expect “equality and fairness” to be legislated by the government and legally defined by the courts. The door is now open in this particular arena and God only knows what will come rushing through it. One thing we can count on, there will be no measurable improvement in the religious or moral fabric of the nation in the coming years.
For those who believe that simply changing things is always the answer, I hope that you can stay around in this society long enough to allow the moral decay to register upon you. Our system is being slowly dismantled…a system upon which an entire nation was founded and has existed for over two centuries. Our principles and our values are being tossed to the wind not on the logic and good judgment of nine wise judges but on the emotional whims of political opinion. A society devoid of both religious and moral principles and values is one doomed to failure. God Bless This Nation, we certainly will need every possible blessing to survive all that potentially lies before us in the future.
©Copyright WBrown2013. All Rights Reserved
If you desire to read more by Wayne Brown, please visit his website: