Shredding Our Constitution

Shredding Our Constitution

constitution shreddedby Diane Robertson

The United States of America has officially entered the realm of the ridiculous and impossible. Five justices on the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution apparently protects the dignity of adults, and since heterosexual marriage bestowed dignity upon those couples, then according to the Constitution of the United States any two people can marry. Justice Kennedy proclaimed to the people of the Nation that:

“With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter.”

I’ve read the Constitution several times and I don’t recall anything that could suggest that it protects dignity. If that is the case then no one should ever get a traffic ticket because that is definitely undignified. And no one should ever lose a job or be chided or sent to jail for a crime. Those are all definitely undignified and certainly impose stigma and injury. Oh, and shouldn’t ivy league universities be required to accept every applicant? Going to those schools definitely bestows dignity and being rejected can certainly impose stigma or cause harm. Oh, and everyone who wants to, ought to, become movie stars or doctors or lawyers or Supreme Court Justices or the President because those are dignified careers, and not getting those jobs could cause harm.

Though on a more serious note, this Supreme Court ruling is devastating to religious people, religious institutions, and religions. Suddenly five people have declared that if any of the other 300 million people in the nation think that gay marriage is wrong or hold to the Biblical and religious views about homosexuality then those people are bigoted and engage in discrimination that is akin to racial discrimination.

Chief Justice Roberts noted:

“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 will this change play out? We are about to find out. We can guess that business owners, doctors, lawyers, and the like will be regulated on how they must conduct their business. Conscientious objections will almost certainly be made illegal. School curriculum will almost certainly be required to include lessons on “diverse” families. Sexual education programs will probably be expected to teach sodomy alongside sexual intercourse as equal. Many expect religious schools, businesses, and charities to be regulated while Churches lose their tax exempt status.

But there are other questions we must ask as well:

Will the government allow religious teachers to stick to the Biblical teaching that homosexuality is a sin? Will the government censor the Bible? Will those who use the verses in the Bible in a sermon be convicted of a hate speech crime? Will the government stop parents from teaching their children about religion? Will CPS enter the homes of families that teach their children that homosexuality is a sin? Will the government censor newspapers, magazines, books, and websites that publish ideas that are contrary to gay marriage or homosexuality?

Time and lawsuits will tell as more judges “interpret” this new “law”. But one thing is for sure, the justices got this wrong. They violated the Constitution by acting as the law-making branch. This should have been fought out in the legislature. Within a single ruling five people made up something ridiculous about the Constitution, violated the separation of powers clearly spelled out within the Constitution, destroyed the First Amendment of the Constitution. In a sense, they ripped the foundational document of our nation to shreds.

 

 

4 Comments
  • Myself
    Posted at 17:50h, 01 July Reply

    So I’m a millenial, may I just make some suggestions for those interested in reversing Oberfell v. Hodges as quickly as possible, instead of taking 40+ years like the pro-life movement? I think my input matters because it was because of my generation that society now supporting same-sex marriage against all sense.

    1) Focus on pornography, stopping sex slavery, and the effects of deviant sexuality first. If you start arguing about how children need mothers and fathers, label marriage as a Biblical or Judeo-Christian concept (huge turnoff for many young people–and yet I can’t find a single pro-family article on the internet that doesn’t use those terms) and how marriage is a fundamental part of society–my generation will tune out. My generation wants to hear how this applies to them–and they don’t believe in God much anymore–and those that do want equal respect for the beliefs of Muslims and Buddhists etc…, nor do they care about what’s best for family structure. On the other hand my generation loves a good cause. They’d love to stop AIDS, suicide, sex slavery, and stop Big Porn from exploiting people if given a chance. And it’s because of porn that people seek out deviant sexuality or don’t see a problem with it in the first place. Destroy porn, and you take down the LBGT movement with it. Yes even the trans-movement has a lot of people just into the eroticness of a change and are essentially committing blackface, not everyone but a lot. I love that MassResistance.org is focusing on the problems of deviant sex, and marketing to youth, and the legal problems behind O v. H, they believe that this is the achillies heel, not the arguments the pro-family movement has been using. Their analysis is by far the most convincing, check it out: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/15b/SCOTUS-marriage-case/analysis.html
    2) Do what Live Action does (founded less than 10 years ago and extremely powerful), use positive terminology (notice it’s not called Death Resistance), show the absurdity and the exploitation of human dignity in ways everyone agrees is shocking. Then when you’ve got a loyal audience across different backgrounds, add in related concepts. For example Live Action now talks about pornography, dangerous sex practices endorsed by PP, and euthansia. Yet at the same time they are a one-issue team that is very open to athiests, gays, political affiliation etc…and tries to unite them, it even has speakers from those backgrounds. They don’t assume people are on the same page, and because of that they have lots of followers–young followers. It helps that their speakers are young and relatable and that their website and social media involvement is up-to-date. Complete with handouts for college students, shocking documentaries and tips on how to proselytize the pro-life cause.
    3) And finally Live Action is successful because they don’t compromise their values. A life is a life, there’s no exceptions, no boundaries to this–it hurts everyone not just God, and it’s flat out scandalous. Kind of like when Christ came into the temple: nope, this is wrong, we won’t have it. And absolutely no one argued. The pro-aborts desparately want the old days when it was about shaming people who should have been more responsible but making exceptions when someone acted properly. They’re not getting those days back and that’s why they’re losing and getting laughed at–Live Action makes sure they exploit PP’s greed–and millenials hate greed and hypocrisy. Obviously it’s going to be very hard to just say homosexuality is wrong and that’s that in our society without most people ganging up against you. But you can show that porn harms and Big Porn is greedy with poor resistance at best. From that it will be natural to talk about how deviant sexuality is addicting and harmful, and then finally go to homosexuality. By the time we’re allowed to talk about this again there should be plenty of people to testify against the gay lifestyle.
    4) SCOTUS has made the choice to define your lifestyle/identity/unborn child’s existence (see Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992) on par with defining your faith. We need to show that religion is not a choice but a matter of conscience. Lifestyles on the other hand can harm.

    Hope this didn’t sound rude or demeaning, it wasn’t meant to be, I’m just pulling my hair out as I look at the way pro-family people have handled this, not trying to single out you or United Families.

    Lots of Love to whomever takes the time to read this, I hope this helps

  • Myself
    Posted at 18:20h, 01 July Reply

    I also forgot to add #4, show how deviant sex harms people who identify as gay, trans. Millenials will warm up to this because they felt that same-sex marriage would help the dignity of these people. Once people feel that their lives aren’t improved but made worse by acting on their tendencies, they’ll wonder why the courts ever endorsed this in the first place or claimed that it gave dignity to them. Expose the gay mafia for what they are too, then the youth will recognize that standing against s-s marriage was the real heroic stand.

  • jessie elizabeth
    Posted at 17:17h, 02 July Reply

    so very good – love your articles – please let me use your words to argue (lovingly) to friends that don’t share my point of view.

  • Diane Robertson
    Posted at 06:45h, 04 July Reply

    Of course you may use my words.I try and write what I see as truth and truth does not have ownership. It is for everyone

Post A Comment

11 + 2 =