I wasn’t going to post today, I owe John Avery a long over due review on his book “The Name Quest“. I have a post for Credo Covenant that I have been working on. So I am past due and have been playing catch-up. However the number one fan has expressed his displeasure and with the recent SCOTUS decision I thought better of not posting. So Wes this is your responsibility.
Here is the text of the fourteenth amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article
Got that? Because this is what the majority opinion is said to based upon.
You can read the entire thing here.
There are four separate dissents Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
All of them are worth looking at but I am going to highlight Alito’s comments.
The question in these cases, however, is not what States should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.
Adherents to different schools of philosophy use different terms to explain why society should formalize mar- riage and attach special benefits and obligations to per- sons who marry. Here, the States defending their adherence to the traditional understanding of marriage have explained their position using the pragmatic vocabulary that characterizes most American political discourse. Their basic argument is that States formalize and promote marriage, unlike other fulfilling human relationships, in order to encourage potentially procreative conduct to take place within a lasting unit that has long been thought to provide the best atmosphere for raising children. They thus argue that there are reasonable secular grounds for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
It is far beyond the outer reaches of this Court’s authority to say that a State may not adhere to the understanding of marriage that has long prevailed, not just in this country and others with similar cultural roots, but also in a great variety of countries and cultures all around the globe.
Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.
It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.
Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.
The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.
I do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation.
Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends. (Emphasis mine)
Of course no one is really surprised at this ruling, It was obvious from the beginning that the liberals on the court would go this way. But take it for granted that it won’t end here this is a pandorian event and ultimately the box will be empty.
Foreseeing this the Southern Baptist Convention on June 17 adopted “On the Call to Public Witness on Marriage” resolution. The statement reads:
“No matter how the Supreme Court rules, the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirms its unwavering commitment to its doctrinal and public beliefs concerning marriage,”
“Southern Baptists love our neighbors and extend respect in Christ’s name to all people, including those who may disagree with us about the definition of marriage and the public good.”
Ronnie Floyd president of the Southern Baptists referred to this as a Bonhoeffer moment saying:
“While some evangelicals … may be bowing down to the deception of the inclusiveness of same-sex marriage or marriage in their churches, we will not bow down, nor will we be silent.”
“I want to remind everyone today, humbly, the Supreme Court of the United States is not the final authority, nor is the culture itself, but the Bible is God’s final authority about marriage and on this book we stand,”
I’m going to end this post with what James White posted on his Facebook page on June 22
How to Glorify God on Marriage Profanation Day
- Begin the day with prayer and Bible reading, submitting your mind to the Lordship of Christ.
- f you are married, pray for your spouse, expressing thanks to God for your marriage, and imploring the Almighty to protect your marriage so that it may be a witness to the world of what God intended.
- Review the teaching of Jesus on the foundation of marriage in Matthew 19:4-6. Note especially that the Creator Himself established gender, the role of the husband, of the wife, of the father, and the mother, and that the only relationship He will ever bless is one that fits in this paradigm: one man, one woman.
- Pray for grace to love rebel sinners who will be rejoicing in the profaning of God’s good gifts, for you, too, once hated what is good and loved what is evil. Remember, you have been redeemed from the world, transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light, and that all of grace.
- Pray for the younger generation that has been robbed of transcendent meaning and purpose. Pray for God’s people, those young folks still being called out of the darkness into the light, for they will face a far more difficult world than most of us older followers of Jesus in the United States have ever faced.
- Do not look backwards and long for the “good ol’ days” when a semblance of moral sanity prevailed by God’s grace in our land. Realize in the midst of judgment we are called to be salt and light.
- Go out and tell someone Jesus is Lord. Lord over all of life. Lord over creation, Lord over man’s institutions, Lord over all human authorities. Be salt. Be light. The darkness is deepening daily, and that means our light is all that much more necessary. The denizens of the darkness will try to extinguish that light. They cannot.
I can only say maranatha even so come Lord Jesus!
Thank you and come back next week God willing–Keachfan