Supreme Court Does Not Have Authority to Redefine Marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected any day to release opinions on two landmark cases (Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor) that, should the court overstep its authority, threaten great violence to the age-old institution of marriage – society’s fundamental cornerstone.

Also at stake is the high court’s already fragile legitimacy.

Lest there be any doubt as to where the Bible-believing Christian community stands, scores of Christian leaders and clergy – Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant alike – have released a statement in anticipation of these rulings entitled: “We Stand in Solidarity to Defend Marriage and the Family and Society Founded Upon Them.”

I was honored to have my name included among the list of signatories that, collectively, represent tens of millions of Christians.

The Marriage Solidarity Statement was drafted jointly by Deacon Keith Fournier, editor of Catholic Online and chairman of Common Good Alliance, and Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel Action. It was then vetted and approved by dozens of the aforementioned signers. Personally speaking, I have never seen a document that better captures and illustrates the certainties of legitimate marriage and family, as well as the inevitable consequences of tampering with either. (Go to MarriageSolidarity.com and add your name to the Marriage Solidarity Statement.)

The central reality behind the statement is this: Marriage is what marriage is, has always been, and always will be. Marriage predates civil government. Mankind can no more transmute marriage to something it is not than can we reverse the earth’s rotation or gravitational pull. Despite an evidently contagious delusion to the contrary, not even the United States Supreme Court is capable of overruling the laws of moral and biological physics. Any attempt to do so is illegitimate. It’s moral alchemy. “Like other natural laws or laws of physics that govern our lives, marriage predates government, and civil institutions have no authority to redefine marriage,” observes the statement. “Marriage cannot be redefined into something it is incapable of being. …”

“If the Supreme Court were to issue a decision that redefined marriage or provided a precedent on which to build an argument to redefine marriage, the Supreme Court will thereby undermine its legitimacy,” it notes. “The court will significantly decrease its credibility and impair the role it has assumed for itself as a moral authority. It will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role and contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time.”

Indeed, according to the unequivocal precepts of moral truth – reflected explicitly throughout both the Old and New Testaments – homosexual behavior is sin. Sin is evil. Homosexual behavior is the central, defining characteristic of so-called “gay marriage.” Therefore, “gay marriage” is evil.

To be sure, Christians are obligated to avoid sin – to “do no evil.” Any Christian who desires to remain faithful to biblical truth and obedient to Christ must not – indeed, cannot – pretend, along with the world, that things illegitimate are somehow legitimate; that things inherently evil can, on a whim, be made good.

Still, perhaps the greater evil lies swathed amid the absurd notion that six men and three women have anything to say about the definition of marriage whatsoever. It requires a rare degree of pride and hubris to presume that mankind can somehow redesign that which mankind never designed in the first place.

The Marriage Solidarity Statement acknowledges “that marriage and family have been inscribed by the Divine Architect into the order of creation. Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family. Family is the first vital cell of society; the first church, first school, first hospital, first economy, first government and first mediating institution of our social order. The future of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family.”

The statement likewise affirms that religious liberty and counterfeit “gay marriage” cannot coexist in harmony: “Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same government will then enforce such an action with the police power of the State. This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights. We cannot and will not allow this to occur on our watch. Religious freedom is the first freedom in the American experiment for good reason.”

The statement closes with the following: “As Christians united together in defense of marriage, we pray that this will not happen. But, make no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the true common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.”

This is not the first time the church has faced the specter of persecution as the unjust consequence of refusing to violate her collective conscience. Neither will it be the last. Matthew 22:21 admonishes, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

The same folk who presume to deconstruct natural marriage are usually the first to quote this verse out of context. They are also the first to beat believers about the head and neck with the deliberately misapplied “separation-of-church-and-state” billy club.

Know this: Marriage belongs unto God, not unto Caesar. That the Supreme Court might even think itself capable of redefining “the pre-eminent and the most fundamental of all human social institutions” represents an intolerable commingling of state and church. It’s the Supreme Court encroaching upon the Supreme Authority.

“Separation of church and state” indeed.

(Go to MarriageSolidarity.com and add your name to the Marriage Solidarity Statement.)








Comments

comments

Posted in Constitution, Law, Liberalism, Marriage, Morality Tagged with: , , , , , ,
  • jsmithcsa

    FDR castrated the SCOTUS in the Court-packing scheme and it hasn’t been worth a bucket of cold urine since then.

  • texan texan

    There are no details on what these patriots will do to not follow the rulings. Their churches don’t perform gay marriage but DOMA covers things like federal lasts on inheritance, other laws on visitation, etc. this has nothing to do with church objections. Lots of press,lately on Christian Domestic Discipline. Maybe you guys can practice that on any wives who disobey you but not really gonna work on Federal laws. Maybe have to re think this.

    • Bobseeks

      Maybe you just have to learn to think rather than parrot liberal propaganda.

      • RECMANMC

        Maybe you should not just parrot what someone has told you on the extreme right and think for yourself. Texan Texan is talking about the the Constitutionality of the laws, period. It the Supreme Court decides that gay marriage is permitted under the Constitution, your church does not have to comply. Many religions forbid drinking but it is within the law.

        • Bobseeks

          Are you really that stupid? The first thing the sodomites will do is go to churches and demand to be married. Any churches that refuse will be sued. It doesn’t matter whether or not the sodomites win, the churches will either lose their religious liberty or go broke defending it.

        • RECMANMC

          Maybe you not aware the First Amendment and the five freedoms: Freedom of Speech (which you and I are exercising), Freedom of the Press (which this article is exercising), Freedom of Religion (to determine the matrimony permitted in one’s faith), Freedom of Petition (which the article is encouraging), and the Freedom of Assembly (which this forum is doing electronically). While we may find gay marriage offensive in our own beliefs, if the courts expand the definition marriage to include gay couples, it expands freedoms, not diminish them. I am a staunch defender of these freedoms and am not a paranoid as you that churches will lose their liberties.

        • BigUgly666

          Have you actually READ the Constitution?
          Show me where, IN THE CONSTITUTION, the “supreme court” has any authority of mandate to decide anything about “gay marriage” or “marriage” in general.

        • RECMANMC

          It really doesn’t make any difference whether you think the Supreme Court has the authority to decide anything about marriage, they took on the case under the 14th Amendment. This will be a moot point tomorrow when after the Supreme Court hands down its decisions on marriage. they may say that after review, they don’t have the authority.

        • RECMANMC

          BigUgly666, the Spreme Court did not rule on marriage, they ruled that DOMA violated equal protection and Pro8 decision by the district court was left standing because the plaintiff did not have standing to bring an appeal.

    • thisoldspouse

      On the contrary, this has everything to do with church objections. The Gaystapo will not stop until they undermine and subjugate all religious freedom.

      • Bobseeks

        True – the gaystapo has already sued those whose religious beliefs caused them to refuse to take part in their unholy marriage ceremonies.

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    This should be a wake-up call for Christians who have been hoodwinked into believing the Constitution and it’s three branches of government are Biblically compatible. They are not. The fact, that Article 6 claims the Constitution is the supreme law of the land (with not even a nod to Yahweh’s law) is seditious.

    “Sedition is defined as a rebellious act against authority. To enact a law superior or contrary to an authority’s law is, therefore, treason against that authority. Since all authority resides in Yahweh and because the Constitution is replete with edicts contrary to His sovereignty and morality, the Constitution is seditious against Him and His kingdom.

    “A supreme law can only come from a supreme being. The claim that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land is another witness to the clandestine assertion in the Preamble that WE THE PEOPLE is the god of the United States government. Accordingly, it becomes the god of anyone today who looks to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. (See Chapter 3
    concerning the serious implications of WE THE PEOPLE as a deity.) How can Constitutionalists claim to believe the following passage?

    ‘Thine, O YHWH, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O YHWH, and thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might….” (1 Chronicles 29:11-12)

    “This and numerous other passages declare Yahweh and His law supreme. Christians can’t have it both ways. They can’t advocate the Constitution as Biblical while at the same time claiming Yahweh’s law is supreme. The Constitution demands otherwise….”

    For more, see “Swallowing Camels… Pt. 7″ at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/swallowing-camels-pt-7/.

  • VanceJ

    They don’t have the right, but that don’t make any difference to them.

    • Nadine

      If Gays want a church marriage…go to another country that performs them…ARE there any!!

  • HarryTC

    Patriotism has already left the Chief Justices Courtroom.
    I don’t know who is calling the shots for the Chief Justices but,
    The Supreme Court Judges have recently crossed the line an openly disregarded the Constitution by refusing to protect The United States from Constitutional Abuses. They (SCOTUS) now are in “contempt of Constitution ” and this is the most troubling problem Americans face today! With a Constitutionally INELLIGIBLE President holding Office, under the full knowledge of the Justices, what more can we expect!
    In your browser, type in illuminati backwards, add dot come, and you decide!

  • Radman414

    Doublespeak is “language which makes the bad seem good, the negative seem positive, the unpleasant seem attractive, or at least tolerable.” — William Lutz, The New Doublespeak, 1996.
    A word frequently abused by doublespeak is ‘tolerance.’ “It once meant living peaceably with those who might disagree. It grew out of the biblical conception of humility before God and the command to love one’s neighbor. Now it means waging war on the moral order in pursuit of faux ‘equality.’

    ‘Tolerance,’ wrote G.K. Chesterton, ‘is the virtue of the man without convictions.’ The people today who wield ‘tolerance’ like a commissar’s bloody ax actually do not lack convictions; they just want to punish anyone who does not share theirs.

    “If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be – not just homosexuality, [but] adultery, fornication, premarital sex, whatever it may be – I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So, I would not characterize that person as a Christian, because I don’t think the Bible would characterize him as a Christian.” — ESPN the Magazine writer, Chris Broussard

  • Radman414

    Gay Marriage transfers the legitimacy of the Church to the State by co-opting the term, ‘marriage’ under the straw man of ‘equality’…” – Michael Childs, Patriot Action Network, 4/1/13.

    Words (terms) have meaning, and I fully support the concept of civil unions/legal partnerships between members of the same sex; and they should bestow rights and responsibilities on the partners that are absolutely equivalent to man-woman unions. However, “formalized” same-sex relationships should NEVER be called a “marriage”… period! The term “marriage” has its origins in religion, and it has been specifically and historically defined in the Holy Bible, the Quran, etc., and other religious documents as the solemn God-sanctioned ceremony of one man and one woman. NO court and NO civil government of any type has the right or the authority to re-define any religious terms; so the bottom line here is that relationships between members of the same sex cannot BE, and should, therefore, NEVER BE referred to, or designated as, a “marriage” anywhere in either civil law or in society…because THEY ARE NOT!

  • EddieBop

    Mr. Barber, the author, is glaringly erroneous on several counts. First, he presents his case as though the United States is a “Christian nation”, which it is not, and has not been since the Constitution was ratified. A great many people want it to be otherwise, but it isn’t. No laws of the United States can be based on religious claims or principles. If a law happens to coincide with biblical law, that is coincidental and nothing more. Next, marriage in the United States is a civil contract, whether or not there is a religious ceremony. Indeed, a very large proportion of marriages are performed by civil, not religious authorities. Next, divorces are again civil actions, ending what was a civil contract. Some religions require a religiously sanctioned divorce (Jewish), while other religions simply do not allow it (Catholic) except in very limited circumstances where there is an annulment, not a divorce. And, contrary to the claims of many alarmists, should the Supreme Court decide to strike down DOMA and declare same-sex marriages legal, no church or other religious authority will be required to perform same-sex marriages. The state cannot dictate what ceremonies religious institutions may perform. Conversely, no marriage in the United States can be legally performed without a civil license. Finally, the basis upon which the Supreme Court will likely strike down DOMA is already in the Constitution, and also appears written above the pillars on the facade of the Supreme Court building; “Equal Justice Under Law.” To somehow insist that same-sex marriage will “destroy” traditional marriage is, on its face and based on history, irrational and idiotic. Is there an epidemic of marital break-ups that are being caused by same-sex marriages that we haven’t heard of?

  • wildeagleone

    Roberts must be proud that he has done this to the country by one simple changing of the mind because of fear.

    • jerry1944

      I don’t know if it was fear of the nsa are the irs but he sure turned traitor to his country worst than any prisoner of war Roberts is a traditor for sure

  • Judicious

    The bizarre homosexual marriage campaign is in full swing. Why do folks yield to such perversion? What is the rationale? Can it be mass brainwashing? What does the populace ultimately gain?

    Nothing!

    The same-sex marriage scam must be rejected. The consummation requirement to validate a marriage is deeply rooted worldwide in age-old tradition and common law; it is impossible for same-sex partners to consummate a marriage, consequently a same-sex marriage can never be valid, even after going through an official ceremony. Still, lesbians may marry homosexual men, just as with heterosexual couples. Notwithstanding minor legal nuances, ALL ARE TREATED ALIKE. There is NO discrimination! There is nothing unconstitutional! Consequently, same-sex marriage is an absurd sham, irrational, and invalid; absolutely not at all legally compelling!

    In addition, an unassailable precedent exists as a corollary to the SCOTUS “Obama care” ruling, since DOMA was DULY ENACTED by congress (reflecting Chief Justice Roberts’ strong assertion), and thus it cannot be judicially reversed, lest the SCOTUS degenerates to issuing capricious, frivolous and arbitrary rulings! Proposition eight represents an even stronger precedent, since it is the direct will of the people, another strong assertion of the SCOTUS!!

  • foxxybey

    Seems they have been given more power by the Kenyan-in-chief then what was intended and taking advantage to be the most immoral idiots ever.

    • BigUgly666

      That “power” was not his to give, for myriad reasons, therefore, he COULD NOT GIVE IT.

  • 7papa7

    We are responsible and accountable to a much higher authority than SCOTUS. I will follow Him, God, over the rogue out of control SCOTUS. Like it or not we were founded as a Christian nation with the understanding that we are to obey God over man every time. This Christ hater in the WH has put those on SCOTUS that hate God also and think that they have authority over God, they DON’T. Remember folks we are to follow God and ONLY follow man’s laws when they do NOT violate God’s laws. This is just the beginning of forcing Bible believing churches to perform gay marriages. It is also the beginning of the government taking over the churches. I assure you that is the ultimate goal and it will happen.

    • patriotusa2

      I couldn’t agree more, and I too, consider myself accountable to a much higher authority than SCOTUS.

      • 7papa7

        Praise God.

  • HongryHawg

    SCOTUS will certainly be overstepping if they think they can change God’s laws. Is it possible that they are thinking that if they do, it will change the truthful concept of marriage? Surely they aren’t that arrogant. But, one must consider this administration’s ability to threaten and bully for the rulings that will push their agenda. We’ll see what they end up putting on paper, because that’s all it will be; on paper.

  • marineh2ominer

    Only GOD or mother nature have the right or even ability to redefine marriage , and I don’t expect to hear from either of them any time soon .

  • bahndon

    with a lesbian on the court, we can be sure there will be at least one for changing the definition of marriage. no other mammal on earth lives in a same sex relationship.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kenneth.bowman.773 Kenneth Bowman

    Time to STAND UP for OUR RIGHTS!

  • BigUgly666

    Neither does the “supreme court” have the “authority” to redefine the phrase, “shall not be infringed” ……. but, they do it …. in direct violation of the Constitution.

  • servant1jkb

    This court, who thinks of self, as supreme, are trying to usurp the actual Supreme Deity, who set up marriage, at the beginning! It was to Adam and Eve only man latter came by with Steve!
    This negates the first Four Commandments, not a good stand to take!