I’m having trouble corralling my thoughts on this week’s Supreme Court rulings

My brain seems to be a tangle of thoughts, concerns, and emotions, given the momentous rulings handed down by the nine Ivy League lawyers in black robes in Washington, D.C.  Over the experience of humanity, for the last 5,000 years of recorded human history, those nine people have in one stroke, deemed that two people of the same sex are entitled to describe their relationship as “marriage”.  The institution that has contributed the most to the survival of civilization; the family consisting of a married man and woman and their natural children, has now, in one fell swoop, been reduced to just another “lifestyle choice”. This decision, which overrules the express wishes of the people to define marriage as between one man and one woman (see Proposition 8 in California), changes the institution of marriage into a union of any two adults who want to call themselves “married”.  This promotes the lie that two men or two women are exactly equivalent to a man and a woman; what follows is that any children added to the relationship (NOT born to it, as that is impossible) have no need of a mother or father-two mommies or two daddies are just the same.  As Ryan Anderson says: “It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children.”

We have already seen the effects in states that have made homosexual “marriage” legal.  Christian small businesses forced to close their doors when they refused to serve homosexual “weddings”.  Christian adoption agencies forced to quit serving their communities when they attempted to uphold their religious beliefs by not placing children with homosexual couples.  So what’s next?  Christian and Jewish schools forced to close when they are not allowed to teach their students that homosexual behavior is wrong?  Churches and Synagogues stripped of their tax-exempt status if they decline to preside over homosexual “marriage” ceremonies?  Parents who home-school their own children forced to use the state-mandated curriculum that celebrates homosexual behavior?  Web sites of Christian or Social-conservative groups sued for “hate speech” of authors who post there?  The more-rapid bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare when homosexual “spouses” become eligible to collect on their “spouses'” accounts?  The removal from polite language of the terms “mother”,”father”, “husband”, “wife”?  Since most of this is already happening, expect it to accelerate.

Then, there’s the Obamacare ruling, where SIX Supreme Court justices agreed that words in plain language (“established by the state”) do not mean what they say in plain language.  If a court can simply deem that words do not, in fact, mean what they say, then no law, ever, will ever mean anything.  That ruling has completely upended the rule of Law in this country, in favor of the Rule of Lawyers.    What is now to stop anyone from challenging the wording of any law, claiming that its meaning is exactly opposite to what the law explicitly states?  In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia says: “The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the ‘most natural sense’ of the phrase ‘Exchange established by the State’ is an Exchange established by a State. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that ‘it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!)’”

Your Liberty has just been abridged even more than it was already by the totalitarians in the Obama Regulatory State.  Alexander Hamilton said, in Federalist No.1:

Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.

One thought on “I’m having trouble corralling my thoughts on this week’s Supreme Court rulings

  1. sirpercival01

    Kevin Williamson summed it up at NR:

    “In the matter of the so-called Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the law must not say what it in fact does say because it would be better if it were not to say what it says and were to say something else instead. In the matter of same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court rules that the law must say what it does not say because it would be better if it were to say what it does not say instead of what it says. ”

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420406/john-roberts-decision-kevin-d-williamson

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s