Internet Articles (2015)
Nor will they get to argue that, under the norms of social justice, the majority (the minority holding power)—not the rule of law—rules. Carved in stone, God's law is not debatable, nor will those facing God's judgment at the Great White Throne get to argue their politically-correct societal views, or that obeying man's laws when they contradict God's Laws is permissible and that God will give you a "pass" when you stand before Him trying to explain why you did nothing to end the one sin—homosexuality—that the Holy Spirit declared to be a stench in God's nostrils?. Or, that you should be excused for doing nothing because there was nothing you could do—when, in fact, there was. You are responsible for the political views and agendas of those you place in the US Senate by either voting for them, or not voting at all because you didn't like the other guy.
Codified by five of the Justices, same sex marriage is now the law of the land—and the last step in a 5,000 year journey to bring about the judgment of mankind before the throne of God. You could honestly say that five Supreme Court Justices just sentenced you to Hell because, their decision just sped up the endtime clock and, if you aren't ready to meet your Maker tonight, the odds are 50-50 that you won't be any closer to Heaven when you do because the secular world just erased God's prerogative to establish the rules by which mankind must conduct their lives—and by which man will be judged. Stupid you. You think man's judicial system trumps God's just because God gave you "free will" and the right to make your bed—and the right to sleep in it, in the place of your choosing, for all eternity?
When His disciples went to Jesus Christ as he rested on the Mount of Olives two days before the Passover when He would willingly surrender His mortal life as a sin offering for mankind, the Apostles asked Christ one important question that troubled all of them individually and collectively (probably with the single except of Judas Iscariot who was already planning to betray Jesus and place him in the hands of the Sanhedrin for 30 pieces of silver [Zech. 11:12]). Judas believed that by betraying Jesus, Christ would be forced to slay not only the Sanhedrin, but the Romans. At that time, Judas believed, Christ, with the help of Barabbas, would overthrow the shackles of Rome and restore Jewish sovereignty over the land God bequeathed to Jacob through the Abrahamic Covenant.
His Apostles asked: "Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming..." (Christ's return after His death and resurrection) "...and of the end of the age?" (Matt. 24: 3-4). His disciples asked those two questions because Christ spoke with a foreknowledge that He would suffer a horrific scourging [Ps. 22:1-31], He would be be crucified, and would physically die [Ps. 23:1-6] and then He would physically rise from the grave [Ps. 24:1-10]. The Time of Jacob's Trouble will commence when those signs are fulfilled.
What will trigger the cataclysmic chaos known as "the Time of Jacob's Trouble?" Let me tell you in Christ's own words. "Many shall come in My name, saying, 'I am Christ' and shall deceive many. And you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you be not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All of these are the beginnings of sorrows. There shall be great tribulation such as was not seen since the beginning of the world to this time, nor ever shall be...But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be, for as in the days that were before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark...[T]hen the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all of the holy angels with Him. Then shall He sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all of the nations; and He shall separate them one for another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats and sets the sheep on his right hand and the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on His right, 'Come ye, blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world'....Then shall He say unto those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" [Matt. 24:5-8, 21, 37-38, 25:31-34, 41]
Now that might be more Bible verses than you wanted in a political article, but for those who got this far, you probably got the point. The problem in Noah's day that caused God to destroy the world with a disastrous universal flood was the same problem Lot encountered in Abraham's day—minus the flood but with fire and brimstone.] Scripture—the spoken word of God—tells us why: In Gen. 18:20 God makes it clear. "Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grevious. I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." The three angels which God sent to Sodom—one of whom was the precarnate Christ—appeared first to Abraham in the Plains of Mamre and told him they were going to destroy the five cities in the plains: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zoar and Zeboiim because the odor of their sin—all forms of homophilia—had become a stench in God's nostrils [Gen. 18:1-19:19]. The sin? Homosexuality.
Political correctness, fostered by the political and societal whims of the elite princes of industry and the barons of banking and business in the industrialized world whose "perfect world" would contain about one percent of the 7 billion people now occupying space on planet Earth, realized that a couple of decades of conservative control over the legislative and executive branches of government would end abortion (the murder of prenatal and just-born babies) although not the abortions taking place on the other end of the age corridor which is increasingly becoming the impetus of the barons of banking who worry about the collapse of Social Security and the domino affect it will have on all the central banks of the world. For that reason, the princes of industry began devising a new scheme to bring the population of Earth down to what they believe will be a manageable level
Once again, as the Burger Court (which should have been called the Blackmun Court, when Associate Justice Harry Blackmun pushed Roe v Wade through the high court on Jan. 22, 1973) managed to get Chief Justice Warren Burger, who voted against the taking of a baby's life, but concurred with the majority that although the Constitution does not grant anyone a constitutional right to personal privacy, the 4th Amendment (in the view of Blackmun) imparted such a right to privacy to a woman to the extent that she could kill her unborn baby for intruding in the privacy of her womb—even though the baby was there by the invitation of the woman who consented to the sex act which created the fetus. That was then. This is now.
On June 26, 2015 the Roberts Court (which should be called the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals' Supreme Court) heard the 2013 case of United States v Windsor (DOMA). The DOMA case originated in 2010 when Edith Windsor, a New York resident sued because the State of New York did not recognize her Canadian lesbian marriage to Thea Spyer and, upon the death of Spyer, the State of New York charged Windsor $363,063.00 in estate taxes. The New York Tax Department argued that Windsor could not claim the exemption under Sec 3 of the Defense of Marriage Law (DOMA; Sec. 3 USC § 7). In 2013 the Roberts Court heard the case. The social progressive Obama Administration fought hard to get the verdict they needed to satisfy the less than 3% of the US population that is actually gay or lesbian, hoping to convert millions to the gay and lesbian lifestyle for one reason and one reason only—same sex liaisons don't create babies. That takes a man and a woman.
When the Roberts Court rendered its decision on DOMA on June 26, it also made two other decisions. First was Hollingsworth v Perry and the second was Obergefell v Hodges. In Hollingsworth, the high court declined to rule because, it said, since the appellate court declined to hear the appeal of Hollingsworth as lacking standing, the Supreme Court lacked the authority to decide the constitutionality of Prop 8 solely because the law's supporters were denied standing to appeal the ruling of the District Court that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.
Chief Justice John Roberts raised a legal question in DOMA that suggests the same-sex marriage issue is not yet "settled law." In his opinion, Roberts noted that, in Windsor, the court was not deciding State same-sex marriage bans. In a separate single dissent on DOMA, Roberts' suggested there is still a valid legal argument for States not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other States because "...the Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States...may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.” Nevertheless, the liberal justices with moderate Anthony Kennedy as the tie-breaker vote, declared Sec. 2 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, kicking both legs of the law out from under the traditional marriage advocates.
When James Obergefell's marital partner, John Arthur, died, the Ohio Attorney General Michael John Hodges prevented the Ohio Registrar of Records from listing Arthur as Obergefell's spouse. Obergefell sued. The US District Court for Southern Ohio ruled that the Ohio Registrar could not accept any death certificate from the State if it did not show Obergefell as Arthur's surviving spouse. When Gov. John Kasich and then Attorney General Mike Dewine distanced themselves from the Ohio Dept. of Health which issues the death certificates, US District Court Judge Timothy Black substituted the State's top Health official for Hodges and ruled that "...when a state effectively terminates the marriage of a same-sex couple married in another jurisdiction, it intrudes into the realm of private marital, family, and intimate relations specifically protected by the Supreme Court." Once again, the federal court relied on privacy as a constitutional right citing constitutional violations by Ohio dealing with the privacy rights found in the 14th Amendment. Only, there is no privacy rights found in either the 5th or 14th Amendments.
Sally Blackmun, the unmarried daughter of the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Harry Blackmun, became pregnant at age 19 in 1966. Roe v Wade was not on the horizon, but Blackmun's daughter worried that her pregnancy might tarnish her father's legal career. Instead of the abortion she would have preferred, she married the young man who made her pregnant. The marriage didn't last. When she graduated from law school she became an advocate for women's abortion rights. Clearly, as Harry Blackmun lobbied his colleagues over Roe v Wade in the fall of 1972, he would later admit that his daughter's experience influenced his determination to make abortion legal.
On Jan. 22,1973 Harry Blackmun, the father of legalized abortion in the United States made women's privacy rights up from wholecloth in order to provide women with a special right to kill their unborn children. Not only did Blackmun fabricate a right to privacy that did not exist anywhere in the Constitution, he also argued that since the medical community could not scientifically ascertain at what point a fetus becomes a person, the court would do it for them.
Considering himself to be as god-like as any man can be, he decided that life begins at birth and not a moment before. This time, Blackmun refuted God, who told the prophet Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. And before you came forth out of the womb, I sanctified you and ordained you a prophet unto the nations." (Jer. 1:5) The question which begs an answer is this: would God ordain something not a person as His emissary to the nations? In Luke 1:15 God said of John the Baptist: "...he shall be great in the sight of the Lord...and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb." Again, would God anoint a living something not yet a person, and fill that not yet living fetus with the Holy Spirit? I think you get the point.
The Constitution of the United States does not give the august members of the Supreme Court nor any inferior court the right to legislate from the bench. The separation of powers defines the rights of each of the three branches of government The legislative branch of government is the only branch which possesses the power to create law. The judicial branch adjudicates legal disputes between the various States or between a State and the federal government, or a citizen and either a State or the federal government. But the federal courts do not have any constitutional authority to amend a law by joining it to another law and altering the meaning of one or the other statutes in a way not intended by the legislators who crafted it.
For example: in the case was Reynolds v United States [98 US (8 Otto.) 145] the United States government did just thatthey made it up as they went along. The court decided with respect to the Territory of Utahthe nation's only land area where polygamy, an obligation under the religious tenets of the Church of Latter Day Saints, was legalit had the right to deprive the people in that Territory multiple wives under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of July 8, 1862, which was signed into law by Abraham Lincoln. (Not only did the law sponsored by social progressive Jacobin Sen. Justin Smith Morrill [R-VT] outlaw polygamous marriages, it also limited the amount of wealth any churchChristian, Jewish, Mormon or Catholic (with emphasis on Catholic), or any nonprofit organization (charity) in the United States to an amount not to exceed $50,000. Lincoln's Jacobins used Morrill to seize the assets of churches in the North when their pastors spoke out against brothers killing brothers.
According to the Constitution, neither Congress nor the courts (nor the occupant of the White House through Executive Orders), can amend the Constitution by fiat. Which is what the US Supreme Court did in 1878 when they chose to incorporate a Jan., 1802 letter from soon-to-be president Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, CT Baptist Association to reassure them that he would not follow John Adam's path of promoting Congregationalism as a national religion since the 1st Amendment to the Constitution forbids it.
Jefferson assured them that no State legislature, nor the federal government, could or would enact any law to interfere with man's right to to worship God, since those rights are inherent and, Jefferson noted assuredly, the Constitution places a wall of separation between the State and the church, preventing government from creating a "State church." Jefferson's words were in a personal letter. Not a law. Not a Presidential Proclamation. Not an Executive Order. No congressional action that could be construed as Jefferson attempting to carve his words into law.
The Supreme Court, in order to restrict religious liberty in the United States made it up. They used a phrase from a personal letter from private citizen Tom Jefferson to a group of worried ministers in which Jefferson was assuring those Americans that their right to religious freedom was an inherent right which could not be abridged. But, ultimately, Jefferson's assurancesa nine-word phrase in a personal letter as law did the opposite when it was used by nine corrupt high court justices in the Morrison Waite Court to abrogate that inherent right. In 1802 that would have been enough to rekindle the American Revolution. Only this time, not against the British throne, but against the federal government of the United States.
The United States Supreme Court manipulated a private conversation between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association specifically to give themselves the right to limit religious liberty whenever "free exercise of religion" interfered with the agenda of governmentas it does today with the rise of Islam around the world and a theological quagmire known as Christianity and the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
That provision was placed in the law so that the Union Army carpetbaggers could seize the assets of any church, religion, or political advocacy group speaking out against Lincoln's war policies. When Brigham Young protested the Anti-Bigamy Law, Lincoln agreed not to enforce the law in Utah if Young agreed not to side with the South in the Civil War. Young agreed and Lincoln instructed Gen. Patrick Henry Connor who commanded the Union Army garrisons in Utah not to confront any Mormon who violated the law. President Ulysses S. Grant was not as broad-minded as Lincoln. Unlike Lincoln who ordered Gen. Connor not to enforce the anti-bigamy law, President Grant ordered the unconstitutional law enforced not realizing that his decision had illegally amended the Constitution by fiat and that Reynolds v United States would have devastating consequences down the road when the princes of industry needed to erase God from the hearts of man so they could erase liberty from the lives of men by making freedom a retractable gift from the State and not an inherent right from God.
Over the years the Left has come to realize just how easy it is to amend the Constitution—both by the federal courts and by the federal legislature (as long as a complicit judiciary agrees). California Proposition 8, like DOMA, was a law that sent mixed signals. Mixed signals because, when the high court struck down only one section of DOMA; Sec. 3 USC § 7 which denied gay couples whose marriages were recognized at the state level government benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples—like joint tax returns, Social Security benefits, health insurance, pension protection, benefits for military couples, and immigration protection for couples from different countries, it left Sec. 2 of DOMA standing. Sec. 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 declares that States and territories of the United States have the right to deny recognition of same-sex marriages originating in other States or territories. Since United States v Windsor was a tax assessment case only, it never addressed the same sex marriage between Windsor and Spyer. Which is why the liberals on the high court needed to add two other cases—Hollingsworth v Perry and Obergefell v Hodges—to the judicial maze in order to topple DOMA by confusing the American people about precisely "who shot John?"
The consequences for mankind pretty much remain the same unless the social justice decision made by the communist members of the United States Supreme Court solely to create "marriage equality" (because marriage is a fundamental, inherent right of all Americans) is overturned because the majority opinions in Hollingsworth v Perry, Obergefell v Hodges and United States v Windsor were not based on the rule of law, but on the precepts of social justice with the high court acting as the final arbiter of societal rights and wrongs; and with the Left arguing that denying people the right to marry whomever they wish to marry is to deny them what the high court argues is the most fundamental human right—the right to procreate...or not.