Category Archives: Supreme Court

How the Left Has Sabotaged Marriage and Family

Dr. Paul Kengor, professor of political science at Grove City College, writes a fascinating piece in today's Daily Signal about the involvement of the American Communist Party in pushing the LGBT agenda in America. Dr. Kengor says:

"On June 26, 2015, four of the Supreme Court’s liberals joined Justice Anthony Kennedy in discovering a new right to same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution, one thereby imposed upon all 50 states.

In response, of course, liberals were jubilant. Their leader, the one who promised to fundamentally transform America, responded by literally illuminating the nation’s house in rainbow colors.

Americans saw all of that. They saw the pictures of their fundamentally transformed White House; they saw other culture-transformers dancing in the streets joyously rejecting what a great country once called the laws of nature and nature’s God...

But one thing that very few Americans saw, including the millions of same-sex marriage supporters who aren’t especially political or ideological, was the quite revealing celebration among some really radical quarters.

Among them, Communist Party USA and its publication, People’s World—successor to the Soviet-funded and directed Daily Worker—were thrilled with what Anthony Kennedy and friends had done.

For communists, this was a stunning victory, the securing of a long-elusive effort to vanquish the fixed marriage model set forth long ago by nature and the Creator. Indeed, if you thought the White House seemed eager to hoist the rainbow colors, you should have seen the American Communist Party.

In fact, the party of the red flag had been waving the rainbow flag before June 26, 2015. Communist Party USA has been pumping the full “LGBT” agenda for several years now."

Dr. Kengor goes on to detail numerous examples of how the Communist Party has promoted the LGBT agenda, saying, "We know that one is far more likely to see the rainbow flag at People’s World nowadays than a red flag with a hammer and sickle." Dr. Kengor attributes their activism to pursuit of their long-held desire to subvert religion and family. "For today’s communists, the “LGBT” agenda, especially on marriage, is the hammer and sickle to take down the natural, traditional, biblical, Western/Judeo-Christian model for marriage and family that they have long despised," he writes.

You can read the full article here.

There Is No Need to Deny Individuals Religious Liberty

As millions of Americans refuse to accept the illegitimate ruling of the US Supreme Court redefining marriage, the issue of how to deal with conscientious objectors has risen to the fore.

Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk jailed for refusing to violate her faith by participating in certifying a same-sex ‘marriage’ is perhaps the best known victim of the Court ruling, but she is only one of many who have been fined, fired, punished or put out of business. Similar punishments are taking place regarding religious groups who are unable to comply with Obamacare regulations because of their faith.

This article from The Federalist, written by our friends at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, may suggest one approach for policymakers to consider when it comes to accommodation. The best solution, of course, if for Congress and the states to pass the First Amendment Defense Act to prohibit government retaliation against supporters of marriage.

From The Federalist:

religious-liberty-can-be-accomodatedThere are hard cases of religious conscience, and then there are easy ones. When the government has lots of ways to govern without trampling religious belief, it should be an easy case. We saw one last week when a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Dordt College and other religious nonprofit organizations trying to follow their faith. These groups can’t participate in a web of government regulations that would provide life-terminating drugs to their employees. So the ministries must choose to violate their faith or violate the law, to the tune of millions in Internal Revenue Service fines.

It’s the same choice faced by the Little Sisters of the Poor. If the Little Sisters don’t comply with this contraceptive mandate, they face millions in IRS fines. This is a group that provides vital care for thousands of elderly poor—exactly the sort of care that should be supported and encouraged by the nation’s health-care laws.

. . .

The sad fact is that the government has a win-win solution at its fingertips. As a federal appeals court said in the Dordt College case last week, the government already operates exchanges where millions of Americans can obtain health coverage. Subsidies are available to those whose employers don’t provide health insurance.

This is how the government provides for those whose employers do not provide the generous health-care benefits many religious ministries already provide. The government could easily open those subsidies to any employees of religious groups who want the coverage not included in their employers’ plan. This would satisfy the government’s concerns, satisfy the ministries’ religious beliefs, and ensure that Americans still receive vital services from groups like the Little Sisters.

For that reason, the Eighth Circuit Court of appeals sided with religious ministries last week. Echoing a unanimous Supreme Court opinion on religious freedom, it said, “[I]f a less restrictive means is available for the Government to achieve its goals, the Government must use it.”

it-doesnt-have-to-be-that-wayAlthough the solution is easy, it will probably take another Supreme Court intervention to make it happen. Last week’s court decision disagrees with rulings from several other appeals courts, creating the circuit split that Supreme Court-watchers have been predicting. When federal appeals courts disagree on an important issue like this one, Supreme Court review is very likely. That court returns from its summer recess next week, and it will have to decide whether to take up the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor, East Texas Baptist University, and other religious ministries.

The Supreme Court has been friendly to religious freedom, with recent rulings in favor of Hobby Lobby on a similar challenge, a unanimous victory for religious prison inmates in Holt v. Hobbs, and several emergency orders protecting religious ministries from fines under the HHS mandate. Let’s hope the Court continues this trend, recognizing that when religious freedom and government regulations conflict, it does not have to be a zero-sum game.

Justice Scalia Stands Firm in His Views of Same-sex 'Marriage' Decision

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has not backed down in the slightest regarding his views of the Obergefell decision. The plainspoken, conservative justice has unabashedly condemned the Supreme Court’s decision to force same-sex 'marriage' to be permitted nationwide. As was recently evidenced in his speech at Rhodes College, Justice Scalia has no intention of rescinding his views that the current Supreme Court lineup is taking the nation’s highest court in “the wrong direction.” LifeSiteNews has the story:

Antonin_Scalia_Official_SCOTUS_PortraitJustice Scalia spoke Tuesday for Constitution Day at Rhodes College, where his grandson is a student, warning that the Supreme Court has become a "threat to democracy."

The 79-year-old Reagan appointee said he worries about the nation's highest court, because it is "headed in the wrong direction."

"Saying that the Constitution requires [homosexual] practice, which is contrary to the religious beliefs of many of our citizens," Scalia said – "I don't know how you can get more extreme than that."

Scalia described the Obergefell v. Hodges decision as the "furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants." He rhetorically asked, "Do you really want your judges to rewrite the Constitution?"

Scalia also noted that the make-up of the Supreme Court is "terribly unrepresentative of our country" and pointed out that a law degree does not qualify one to judge transcendent moral issues. "What is it that I learned at Harvard Law School that makes me peculiarly qualified to determine such profound moral and ethical questions as whether there should be a right to abortion, whether there should be same-sex marriage, whether there should be a right to suicide?" Scalia asked. "It has nothing to do with the law."

The conservative justice is well-known for his insistence that the judicial branch of government has the task of interpreting the law in light of the Constitution, not creating law from current cultural trends.

On June 26, the Supreme Court judge wrote his own dissent to the Obergefell decision. In what Church Militant calls "his most sharply worded dissent yet," Scalia called the decision an abuse of the judicial branch, which he said was usurping the authority of the legislative branch, and thus the will of the people.

Scalia's dissent described the Supreme Court's overreach in Obergefell as stepping outside the scope of its authority to dictate radical social policy – which properly is the domain of the democratic process. He wrote that the ruling was a "naked judicial claim to legislative – indeed, super-legislative – power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government."

All four dissenting judges – Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito – felt so strongly that each wrote his own dissent. "Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia wrote. He added that the decision lacks "even a thin veneer of law."

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine," Scalia dissented, "robs the People of ... the freedom to govern themselves."

"When the Supreme Court Oversteps Its Bounds, Citizens Are Right to Resist"

NOM’s chairman, John Eastman, expounds on the arguments surrounding the Kim Davis debacle, and how, “when the Supreme Court oversteps its bounds, citizens are right to resist”:



The double standard on display is palpable. I don’t recall Keegen or any of the other self-righteous, newfound devotees of the rule of law calling for the resignation of Kentucky’s attorney general when he refused to defend his state’s marriage law — or any of the other state attorneys general who did the same, from California’s Jerry Brown to Pennsylvania’s Kathleen Kane, and several others, including perhaps most notoriously Oregon’s Ellen Rosenblum, who was caught actively colluding with plaintiffs to ensure judicial invalidation of the Oregon marriage law she disliked.

“But Davis was refusing to comply with a decision of the Supreme Court,” it will be argued. So, too, did all those illustrious attorneys general. All of them refused to do their duty and defend their state’s man-woman marriage laws, even though the binding precedent of the Supreme Court at that time, a 1972 case called Baker v. Nelson, was that such laws were constitutionally valid.

Ms. Davis’s position has also been mischaracterized as asserting that because the Supreme Court’s decision is contrary to God’s authority, she cannot be compelled to comply with it and therefore can prevent same-sex couples from getting married in her county. Her position — so described — has been belittled by simpletons across the political spectrum as nothing more than the misguided stance of a crazy evangelical clinging to her Bible. But that is not her legal argument at all (however much merit it might have as a reaction to an illegitimate decision by the Supreme Court). Her actual argument is much more restrained.

Kentucky has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which expressly prevents the government from imposing a substantial burden on someone’s religious beliefs unless the government’s mandate is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. Because this lawsuit is pending in federal court, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which contains the same protection, is also applicable. Ms. Davis’s lawyers have simply argued that these federal and state laws require that her religious objection to issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses over her own name be accommodated.

. . .

Abraham Lincoln famously said, in his first inaugural address, that although judicial decisions are binding on the specific parties to a case, “the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

In short, Ms. Davis was much more faithful to her oath of office, and to the Constitution she vowed to support, than the federal judge who jailed her for contempt, the attorney general of the state who refused to defend Kentucky’s laws, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, who usurped the authority of the states and the more than 50 million voters who had recently reaffirmed the natural definition of marriage, in order to impose his own more “enlightened” views on the nation. One can only hope that Ms. Davis’s simple but determined act of civil disobedience will yet ignite the kind of reaction in the American people that is necessary to oppose such lawlessness, or at the very least bring forth a national leader who will take up the argument against judicial supremacy in truly Lincolnian fashion.

Visit National Review for the full article.

Oregon Judge Supports Traditional Marriage; Targeted By Investigation To Determine If He Is Unfit For Office

The nation has just witnessed the disturbing scene of a Christian clerk put into jail, because she did not want to be personally involved in licensing a same-sex ‘marriage’ since doing so would violate her deeply held religious beliefs. Now comes another story of gay activists attempting to destroy another official who similarly holds religious views that will not allow him to participate in same-sex ‘marriages.’

For the past year Marion County (Oregon) judge Vance Day has declined to solemnize any marriages because he does not want to participate in a gay ‘wedding.’ For this, he is now under official investigation against charges he is unfit for office. If found guilty he could be removed from office, costing him his livelihood and reputation for holding true to his religious convictions. This is the latest example of punishment of marriage supporters unleashed by the illegitimate decision of the US Supreme court to invent a “right” to same-sex ‘marriage’ and imposing it in every state without exception. The New York Times has the story:

ThinkstockPhotos-483608742Marion County Judge Vance Day is being investigated by a judicial fitness commission in part over his refusal to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds, a spokesman for the judge said.

When a federal court ruling in May 2014 made same-sex marriage legal in Oregon, Day instructed his staff to refer same-sex couples looking to marry to other judges, spokesman Patrick Korten said Friday.

Last fall, he decided to stop performing weddings altogether, aside from one in March that had long been scheduled, Korten said.

"He made a decision nearly a year ago to stop doing weddings altogether, and the principal factor that he weighed was the pressure that one would face to perform a same-sex wedding, which he had a conflict with his religious beliefs," Korten said.

In an email, Day declined to comment and referred questions to Korten.

The issue of same-sex weddings is "the weightiest" of several allegations against Day that are being investigated by the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability, Korten said.

He declined to detail any of the allegations, saying he didn't want to defy the commission, which considers complaints confidential until it is ready to make them public.

Kim Davis Stands Strong in the Face of an Unjust Law

The Kim Davis debacle presents the American public with something oddly reminiscent of events past. Pundits on both sides of the same-sex "marriage" debate have cited "the wrong side of history" as a reason to stop fighting for the truth about marriage. When put to the test of actual history, however, the argument holds no water. The Town Hall explains:

Image via New York Times/Ty Wright/Getty Images

Image via New York Times/Ty Wright/Getty Images

[One of] the main arguments from gay marriage proponents and conservatives who have given up the fight [is this:] The rule of law must be respected, and therefore everyone, from the clerk to the courts, must comply.

The rebuttal to this argument lies with Martin Luther King Jr., who sat in a jail cell for refusing to comply with Jim Crow: “An unjust law is no law at all.”

What defines an unjust law? One in which those who impose it do not comply with it. I would further add that any law which violates natural law or resists science or market systems falls into the same desiccated category. By the way, everyone seems hell-bent on forgetting that this national imposition of homosexual marriage did not occur from elected officials or democratic consensus, but the arbitrary turn of phrases from five unelected, unaccountable judges. Once again, former Arkansas Governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee had it right: “The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.”

The court which justified “separate but equal” would overturn itself fifty-six years later. Roe v. Wade is facing increasing resistance from science and technology, as well as moral and legal suasion, and has not yet crossed the fifty-year mark. The Obergefell decision is barely two months old, yet across the country Americans are not complying, including Kim Davis. How amazing and compelling that her act of nullification occurs in Kentucky, where Founding Father Thomas Jefferson directed his Resolutions against federal tyranny three hundred years ago.


Kim Davis, like civil rights activist Rosa Parks, refuses to comply with an unjust court ruling based on a misunderstanding of sexuality and marriage.

Kentucky Clerk Continues to Fight for Her Right to Refuse to Issue Marriage Licenses

Kim Davis, a Rowan County Clerk, has been granted a temporary stay on account of her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Until the case is resolved, Davis is not compelled by law to wed same-sex couples. If she loses her case against the state though, Davis could face fines and possibly jail for contempt of court. Kate Scanlon of The Daily Signal, explains Davis’ objection:

ThinkstockPhotos-451417063In an interview with The Daily Signal, Davis’ lawyer, Roger Gannam, senior litigation counsel at Liberty Counsel, an organization that provides free legal assistance in religious liberty cases, said that Bunning’s temporary stay is a “minor reprieve” for his client.

Gannam said that Rowan County’s marriage licenses are issued “under her name and her authority, so that is her religious objection.”

Gannam argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling requires only that states treat same-sex marriage as they do traditional marriage. Under Kentucky law, marriage licenses issued in any county are valid statewide. Therefore, there are over a hundred offices where the plaintiffs could obtain a marriage license.

“It’s certainly not the case that the plaintiffs are unable to get married.”

Gannam said that Davis’s religious beliefs should be accommodated.

. . .

Roger Severino, the director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, said, “When North Carolina faced a similar problem with its clerks, it passed a law allowing civil servants with religious objections to recuse themselves from all marriage licensing functions while at the same time ensuring that every qualified couple would still receive a timely marriage license.”

“It was a win-win and shows that the conscience rights of civil servants can and should be respected even after the Supreme Court’s sweeping redefinition of marriage,” Severino said.

As the States move forward from the Obergefell decision, judges and legislators need to treat everyone with equality. We must uphold the First Amendment and allow those issuing marriage license to recuse themselves when they feel they could personally breach their deeply held religious beliefs.

For original article, please visit The Daily Signal.

How to Argue in Defense of Marriage

What will proponents of the proper definition of marriage in the United States do now? How will we defend our religious freedoms? How can we convince legislators and our neighbors to accept marriage as the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the protection of children? Taking holistic approach toward the issue of marriage, Ryan T. Anderson’s new book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Liberty, answers all of these questions.

ThinkstockPhotos-483371054The Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision was hasty, unpolished, and has ultimately made it possible for many more illicit attacks on marriage to filter their way through the legal system. Anderson’s book addresses these issues and offers solutions for preserving religious liberty, while seeking to overturn the Court’s decision. He offers three key points of immediate action:

1. We must call the court’s ruling in Obergefell what it is: judicial activism.
2. We must protect our freedom to speak and live according to the truth about marriage.
3. We must redouble our efforts to make the case for it in the public square.

In addition, his book takes an in-depth look at the history of marriage itself and affirms its biological truths. Taylor Brown of Juicy Ecumenism, aptly qualifies Anderson’s book:

Truth Overruled is a must-read.  It is a must-read for Christians who want to cogently, winsomely, and respectfully defend both traditional marriage and religious liberty. It is a must-read for non-Christian, religious Americans who also seek reasoned and well-informed defenses of marriage and religious liberty.  It is a must-read for those on the fence about marriage.  It is simply a must read all around.  Anderson presents a well-researched and well-rounded argument for the continued importance of both traditional marriage and the strong protection of religious liberty.  And he does all of this while being eminently respectful to those on the opposite side of the issue.  Anderson’s work is the polar opposite of “hateful,” “bigoted,” or “homophobic.”  It is a prime example of the Christian imperative to “speak the truth in love.”  Though it is the first book to be published on the SCOTUS ruling, it is in no way a lightweight treatment. With the e-book version currently available from Amazon and the print version due out by the end of August, I would highly recommend you pick up a copy.  It will be well worth your time.

If you’re looking to defend marriage in your home, workplace, or church, pick up Anderson’s book as soon as you can!

See Juicy Ecumenism for more.

Groups Urge Alabama Supreme Court to Stand Strong for Marriage

The Constitution is the highest law in the land, not the Supreme Court. When the courts err by issuing an illegitimate decision that lacks constitutional basis, local and state governments are not required to broadly apply them. For this reason, two additional groups are calling for the Alabama Supreme Court to resist the United States Supreme Court’s illegitimate ruling declaring traditional marriage laws to be unconstitutional and purportedly ordering every state to issue ‘marriage’ licenses to same-sex couples.

The groups compare disregarding the ruling to the way that the Wisconsin Supreme court disregarded the mandates of the Fugitive Slave Act and the infamous Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court. President Lincoln also refused to abide by that decision. These new filings are in addition to a filing by Liberty Counsel which similarly urged the state high court to ignore the Obergefell ruling. SFGATE reports on the situation:

ThinkstockPhotos-467245683The Alabama Policy Institute and the Alabama Citizens Action Program did not recommend what the court should do to resist the gay marriage decision.

At a minimum, the groups urged the Alabama justices to try to protect probate judges and their employees who don't want to issue the licenses on religious grounds.

"To require those individuals to participate in the solemnization and celebration of same-sex marriage is repugnant and antithetical to their religious convictions and conscience,” lawyers wrote.

Obergefell violates the First Amendment by forcing officials to act against their consciences. It is an illicit attack on the American way of life and it must be overturned.

Alabama Supreme Court Urged to Protect Religious Liberty

In a potentially significant development, Liberty Counsel has led a brief with the Alabama Supreme Court urging it to ignore the SCOTUS ruling on marriage, citing as precedent a state Supreme Court ruling in Wisconsin where that Court refused to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling in the infamous Dred Scott case.

The Alabama Supreme Court has been a staunch advocate for the decision of their elected officials and voters who overwhelmingly desire to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They refused to allow state clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite a federal judge’s order to do so. In the wake of the US Supreme Court’s illegitimate ruling imposing gay ‘marriage’ on the nation, the Alabama court asked for parties to their marriage litigation to file appropriate briefs advising the court what they should do in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v Hodges.

Liberty Counsel’s brief filed in response to the request has decried the Obergefell ruling as an unlawful and illegal federal usurpation of power that is reserved to the states. In an accompanying press release the group said, “A judicial opinion without constitutional basis is not law and should not be followed by any state or citizen.”

Below is language from their Press Release:

ThinkstockPhotos-78632601Montgomery, AL—In a brief to the Alabama Supreme Court, Liberty Counsel presented legal arguments following the opinion in the marriage case at the U.S. Supreme Court. “When considering the Supreme Court’s Obergefell opinion, state Supreme Courts should contemplate the “decision’s substantial assault on the Rule of Law, Democracy, and Natural Law, and its necessary diminishment of the constitutional right to Free Exercise of Religion,” Liberty Counsel told the Alabama Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts said it best: “[For] those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening….Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

The Obergefell opinion is an assault on Democracy. Justice Antonin Scalia warned, “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine…robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

ThinkstockPhotos-106536180The decision from five lawyers ignored the natural order of marriage: the union of a man and a woman who complement each other biologically and socially, which union produces children, creates a family, and builds society.

“Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect,” Justice Clarence Thomas put forth in his dissent.

The brief by Liberty Counsel points out that the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to follow the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the Dred Scott case, which said that blacks were not entitled to full protection as citizens. The Liberty Counsel brief also urged the Alabama Supreme Court to protect the religious freedom of its citizens.

“There is existing precedent for a state’s highest court to reject an unlawful mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. Staver continued, “The hope of our Constitutional Republic rests upon state officials and American citizens who will refuse to allow five, black-robed judges to rob us of our free, representative form of government. A judicial opinion without constitutional basis is not law and should not be followed by any state or citizen.”

Liberty Counsel also asked Alabama’s High Court to ensure protection of the constitutional rights of Alabama probate judges and other Christian business owners. “Never before in America has a religious requirement been required to hold office or own a business, and it cannot begin now,” Staver cautioned. “To require Christians to pull out pages of their Bible in order to hold office or own a business is anti-American and it is unconstitutional, despite what any judge may say otherwise.”

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.

SCOTUS Marriage Ruling Has Left In Full Retreat on Religious Liberty

Robert Knight, a senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union, offers his informed opinion on what lies ahead for those who disagree with SCOTUS’s ruling regarding same-sex marriage: an end to their religious freedom.

ThinkstockPhotos-479616714Even before the U.S. Supreme Court announced the previously unknown constitutional “right” to impose same-sex “marriage” on all 50 states, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was readying its next volley.

For two decades, the ACLU has cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as a defense of religious liberty in various worthy and some not-so-worthy cases. No more.

The ACLU has decided that the unalienable right to religious freedom embodied in the First Amendment must give way to newly coined claims by newly empowered groups.

In a Washington Post column, ACLU Deputy Director Louise Melling called on Congress to make RFRA essentially toothless. Of course, that’s not the way she put. Here’s her signature sentence: “It’s time for Congress to amend the RFRA so that it cannot be used as a defense for discrimination. Religious freedom will be undermined only if we continue to tolerate and enable abuses in its name.”

. . .

Not missing a beat, atheist activist Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has uncorked yet another call for the Pentagon to weed out conservative Christians. In a Daily Kos posting, he wrote that chaplains who teach biblical marriage “don’t belong in the military. At this stage, the only honorable thing that these losers can do is to fold up their uniforms, turn in their papers, and get the hell out of the American military chaplaincy. If they are unwilling or too cowardly to do so, then the Department of Defense must expeditiously cleanse itself of the intolerant filth that insists on lingering in the ranks of our armed forces.”

Given that this is what passes for tolerance, it’s not surprising that the ACLU and others on the left want to render meaningless the free exercise of religion guarantee of the First Amendment and any federal and state laws that fortify religious freedom.

Deploying the language of inevitability, such as “being on the wrong side of history,” they seek to persuade the vast majority of Americans that resistance is futile.

Are they right? The answer will depend on a vigorous, renewed fight for liberty in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

For the full article, please visit The Washington Times.

The Next Target in the Same-sex Marriage War

Now that the Supreme Court has failed the American people and are forcing states to accept same-sex marriage, what is the next target of same-sex marriage proponents? Dominic Lynch has the answer: after Obergefell, churches are next.

ThinkstockPhotos-122468669Chief Justice Roberts's Obergefell dissent lays the stakes on the table:

Today's decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is -- unlike the right imagined by the majority -- actually spelled out in the Constitution. Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority's decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to "advocate" and "teach" their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to "exercise" religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

How do we get from "marriage equality" to churches forced into performing weddings that violate their teachings? Lawsuits.

Imagine a same sex couple who consider themselves deeply Catholic want to get married at the Catholic church of their choice. They approach the pastor and he declines to officiate the wedding or be a party to it. The spurned couple might then file a non-discrimination lawsuit against the pastor and his parish making the simple argument that because same-sex marriage is a right protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, a parish cannot discriminate in who it weds and who it doesn't.

The religious liberty protections of the First Amendment can only hold up so long when put under the scrutiny that drove Burwell. Play some mental gymnastics a la Roberts and suddenly a centuries-old protection of religious liberty fades away. "Prohibiting" could be construed to mean "Congress can't prohibit except when..." And "free exercise" could take a similar meaning: "Churches can practice their faith freely except when..." It's not a far stretch to suggest this can happen. If Burwell happened, this can happen.

Advocates of same sex marriage have avoided discussing religious liberty protections outside of some editorials that scoff at the idea that the free exercise of religion would ever be threatened by the gay marriage movement. Ultimately, our society is one step away from the previously unthinkable stage of government-coerced marriages in churches.

Unless Congress, governors, and state legislatures act immediately, government-coerced weddings are a matter of when, not if.

The Marriage Debate is Far From Over

Frank Schubert, a long-time partner with NOM and an indispensable marriage champion, pens his insightful observations on how the Supreme Court’s ruling will affect our nation’s continued war on marriage:

The long-expected decision of the U.S. Supreme Court imposing same-sex marriage on the country has been issued. The obvious next question is whether this settles the matter, and there’s a one-word answer: “Hardly.”

If anything, the court’s decision is likely to roil the nation and pave a path toward more cultural conflict, not less.

I have been engaged with the American people in a robust debate on the nature of marriage and how it should be treated in the law ever since I managed the successful Proposition 8 campaign in California. I’ve been involved in legislative and electoral contests in more than a dozen states and in every region of the country.

I realize that many people disagree with the view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. That’s what makes a debate and why we have elections. My side prevailed in four public votes and lost in four others. That is how closely divided the nation is on same-sex marriage.

The 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court has illegitimately truncated that debate. In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”

The court’s narrow majority has substituted its views for those of countless elected officials and more than 50 million voters who decided that traditional marriage should be preserved in their respective states. In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia called it exercising “super legislative” authority.

In legislating from the bench, the court has deprived both sides of the satisfaction of potentially winning the public debate, while cheating the losing side of any solace that might come from being defeated in a fair fight.

This decision joins other infamous rulings that lacked constitutional legitimacy, including the Dred Scott case declaring that African Americans were not citizens but property, and Roe v. Wade mandating abortion in every state. Just as Roe did not settle the issue of abortion, Obergefell v. Hodges won’t settle the marriage debate.

The inevitable result of this ruling will be to ensure that marriage remains controversial. The most immediate political conflict concerns what actions governments might take to force acceptance of the ruling. In states with gay marriage, bakers, florists, photographers and innkeepers have been punished for refusing to participate in same-sex ceremonies. Religious groups have been forced to close ministries such as adoption agencies to avoid violating their beliefs. President Barack Obama’s top litigator has already hinted that Christian colleges could lose their tax exemptions if they do not allow gay couples to live together on campus.

Chief Justice Roberts noted the court majority “ominously” gives lip service to religious liberty by saying that religious people and groups can “teach” and “advocate” for traditional marriage, but the Constitution guarantees the right to the exercise of religion.

There will be a pitched legislative battle in Congress to enact the First Amendment Defense Act (S 1598/HR 2802) to prevent any federal agency from taking adverse action against anyone based on their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The court’s decision will also powerfully inject marriage into the 2016 presidential contest. The most direct course to reverse this ruling lies in the next president appointing new justices to the Supreme Court. Social conservatives will do everything possible to ensure that the Republican nominee is a strong pro-marriage champion, making this a litmus test throughout the GOP primaries and caucuses.

There will also be a strong push to amend the U.S. Constitution, not only to reverse this ruling, but to hold the Supreme Court more accountable. Is amending the constitution easy? No, but neither is recalling a governor or removing state Supreme Court justices, yet these things have been accomplished.

Liberals will bemoan these conflicts as a continuation of the “culture wars,” but they are responsible for advancing them. As long as important values are under fire, especially when they involve giving government the power to subvert unalienable rights granted by our creator, conservatives must either engage the debate or surrender. I don’t see any white flags on the horizon.

Frank Schubert is founder of Mission Public Affairs, a Sacramento political consulting firm. He ran the pro-Proposition 8 campaign in 2008 and several other campaigns around the country supporting traditional marriage.

This article originally appeared on The Sacramento Bee.

"SCOTUS is Not the Final Word on Marriage"

NOM President and co-founder Brian Brown discusses the future of marriage today in the Washington Examiner:

Words in FamilyThis not the first time that the Court has relied on its own conception of liberty to justify a decision. One of the best examples of this phenomenon was the Dred Scott v. Sandford case in which a majority of the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on slavery were unconstitutional because of the implied right of slaveholders. African Americans were thus not people entitled to the rights of citizens, but instead property subject to the will of their masters.

In terms of its legal reasoning, the marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, is the Dred Scott decision of our time. It is illegitimate and completing lacking in constitutional authority. It is the product of unaccountable judges legislating from the bench, usurping the role of elected officials and voters and imposing a social policy on the nation because they think they know best.

And like Dred Scott, America need not accept it as the final word, the "law of the land" or even a decision worthy of respect.

...The decision last week is by no means the final word concerning the definition of marriage. NOM is committed to overturning this ruling and containing its effects.

This is only the beginning of the next phase in the struggle to protect marriage. Read on to learn about three major steps that NOM is taking to reverse this unjust ruling. We will not rest until the injustice of this decision is undone and marriage is restored to our nation's laws as it exists in reality — the union of one man and one woman.


No Longer is it US: It’s Them vs. Us

Real Clear Politics features a sharp piece by William Murchison that appraises what the recent Supreme Court ruling on marriage means for our country. With this latest turn of events, it is hard to find proof that the majority of our unelected judicial leaders fully understand what the terms “democracy,” “liberty,” and “marriage” truly mean:

ThinkstockPhotos-89614480We live at an odd and dangerous moment -- one framed only in part by the court's recent extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples. There is much else to flummox and worry us. "Consent of the governed" seems the last thing on the minds of those determined to herd the sheep -- you and me -- to supposedly brighter pastures.

"We know what's good for you!" is their loud, if unarticulated, injunction. Generally succeeded by: "Shut up -- didn't you hear what we said?"

Chief Justice John Roberts posed a broader, sounder question -- "Just who do we think we are?" -- to his colleagues in the marriage case. By a vote of 5 to 4, the court handed to Americans a new, untested definition of human domestic relationships. Old understandings of marriage were off. We needed a new one -- see? -- and we got it.

Justice Antonin Scalia, as is his wont, saw to the bottom of the matter, writing in dissent: "A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy."

You can take all this if you like as a succession of harrumphings by angry losers. Or you can consider, shall we say, the Big Picture: one bigger than the court, bigger than any wedding party, whatever its sexual composition.

The United States of America -- your country and mine -- has for several decades been unmooring itself from allegiance to truths once generally agreed on as essential to human happiness and freedom. Whether we necessarily meant to slip ancient anchors, that has been the effect. The old American vision no longer serves! A new one is wanted! That's been the consistent narrative.

. . .

The victors want to sweep off the table everything that doesn't please them, replacing it with creations of their own design. What's more, by virtue of their patience and persistence, the victors run vast regions of our country, both geographical and intellectual. They'll tell you Alexander Hamilton doesn't belong on the $10 bill and that our president was right to bathe the White House -- the people's house -- in the rainbow colors of gay liberation.

There's just one trouble. Uprooting truth, or that which has historically been taken for truth, requires more than Justice Anthony Kennedy's say-so. Our elitist Supreme Court has guaranteed for us cultural and constitutional headaches for which no pharmacological remedy exists, headaches possibly of the sort that Mike Huckabee forecasts, involving defiance and division.