Constitutional Crash Test Dummies (Redux…sigh)
It is with absolutely no joy that I feel compelled by recent events to repost an essay from nearly three years ago. Specifically:
“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”
Hillary Clinton, Democrat Candidate for President
Women in the World Summit 2015 at Lincoln Center, April 22-24, 2015
From Give Me Liberty Blog:
Justice Samuel Alito: “In the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?”
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.”
U.S. Supreme Court Arguments
April 28, 2015
Constitutional Crash Test Dummies
So, President Barack Obama has evolved, devolved, re-evolved and now favors same-sex marriage and the MSM has a collective orgasm. But, frankly, the political slight of hand at work here reminds me of the classic head-on collision between reason and power in the movie Jaws:
Contrary to popular opinion this “hot bed” political issue is not about gender or sexual preferences or even “civil” rights for an “oppressed” minority. The tug of war here is the classic battle between government and religion, with the homosexual community in the role of the oft abused crash test dummy from Mythbusters in this societal stress test of our Constitution’s First Amendment — You know, the one that begins:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .
Government issues marriage licenses for its Citizens to establish a legal kinship relationship. Religions conduct services and ceremonies to bless, celebrate and sanctify the familial union of their members according to their commonly held beliefs.
If a government wants to license same sex marriages (like New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire) or a particular religion believes in the sanctity of same-sex marriage (like the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America or the United Church of Christ) fine — No problem — go forth and multiply. Sorry. But seriously, this is America. Move to one of those states. Join one of those religions. Go live your life and pursue happiness.
But if government establishes marriage as a “Civil Right,” then what happens if a particular church does not believe in nor sanctify same-sex marriage and that institution refuses to perform or bless such unions? Are those religious beliefs trumped by the secular dictates of Government? Will those churches be legally and financially persecuted for their beliefs in the name of equality and justice?
Anyone remember, oh so long ago, how the federal government woke up one day and just declared that a woman’s right to contraceptives trumps the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church?
President Obama has tried to change the sense of the First Amendment by recognizing “freedom of worship”, which is very, very different from the “free exercise” of religious beliefs. In other words, you can have your church service on Sundays, but on Saturdays or any other day you had better not think about actually practicing those beliefs by declining to provide employees with contraceptives or by refusing to allow homosexual couples to get married in your church.
Make no mistake this fight is not about protecting the legal rights of a minority. It is the next battle in the Secular Reformation. The fact that civil unions or domestic partnerships are not acceptable solutions betrays a purposeful political and cultural strategy to impose secular humanism on our society and annul the First Amendment. The last annulment this big, ended up with Anne Boleyn losing her head.
Unlike taking prayer out of government schools . . . . or removing Christmas decorations in the town square . . . . or taking down the Ten Commandments from the courthouse wall . . . . forcing same-sex marriages on religious institutions will see the federal government literally invading the sanctuaries of religions.
This puts gay men and lesbians in the driver’s seat of a veritable Constitutional Mythbusters test.
And we all know what happens to Buster.
“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802