The New Intolerance (Part 4)

Leftist Intolerance

Ever since I can remember, the political left in general and the gay rights movement in particular has always cloaked itself in arguments and language calling for greater diversity, tolerance, and pluralism in American society. My, how times are changing! Now as the left is inching ever closer to winning the culture war, their once fine sounding pluralistic arguments have been replaced by a mantra which says, “Adopt our way of thinking, or else pay the consequences!” In our first post, we gave several examples of how this new intolerance has found its way into our language and “logic.”

 

The Legal System

Sadly, not only is such intolerance finding its way into our language and “logic,” but now even the American legal system is beginning to move in this negative direction. In our last two posts, we noted several legal cases transpiring in contemporary America where the gay rights agenda was foisted upon individuals possessing a biblical perspective on homosexuality thereby coercing them into violating their freedom of conscience despite the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and religion.

 

The Supreme Court and Same-Sex Marriage

gavelSadly, the state of freedom in America is about to get a lot worse. In the much watched case Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court has accepted for review four lower court rulings that struck down bans on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, in a ruling expected to be handed down in June or July, will ultimately decide whether state prohibitions on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868 in the post-Civil War era in order to guarantee specific rights to recently emancipated slaves, the original intent of this amendment has nothing to do with gay marriage. However, it really should not surprise anyone if the Court finds in this amendment a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. After all, back in 1973, in the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, the same court found in this very same amendment, the right to procure an abortion despite the fact that the very states that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 had either passed or were in the process of passing laws prohibiting abortion.1 In other words, if the High Court can manufacture a constitutional right to abort a child out of whole sale cloth on the grounds that the Constitution is a living breathing document, then why cannot they also use the same legal chicanery to make up a constitutional right for same-sex marriage, even though no such right is found in the actual text or original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment? In fact, the various Supreme Court Justices have all but signaled that they, as unelected and therefore unaccountable decision-makers, are on the precipice of once again amending the Constitution from the bench, in circumvention of the actual and deliberately cumbersome amendment process as spelled out in Article V of the Constitution, so as to create a constitutional right for same-sex marriage. Keep in mind that only five votes are needed to create a majority opinion. It is generally believed that all four Democratic nominees to the court — Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan — will most certainly vote in favor of same-sex marriage rights. In fact, for two of these justices, Ginsburg and Kagan, there is virtually little or no doubt how they will come out on the gay marriage issue since they themselves have used their positions as jurists to officiate recent gay wedding ceremonies.2 Also, keep in mind that Justice Kennedy, the typical and crucial swing vote in such controversial and divisive cases, has already forcefully expressed his views on gay rights matters. In fact, Kennedy’s majority opinion in United Sates v. Windsor, a 5–4 decision issued on June 26, 2013, that found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional,3 was so aggressive in its tone, that it prompted dissenting Justice Anthony Scalia to point out that the majority’s attitude toward the dissenting minority was to treat them, as well as all holding to traditional marriage, as “hostes humani generis” or “enemies of the human race.” Scalia well noted:

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.4

Even if this five vote majority, consisting of the four democratic judicial nominees along with Kennedy as the swing vote, unravels, there is no real guarantee that Chief Justice Roberts will vote in favor of traditional marriage. His conservative voting predictability simply cannot be trusted. Remember, it was Roberts who broke with conservative ranks thereby allowing the Supreme Court to recently uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare.5

 

Now that the prospect of a same-sex constitutional right seems imminent and all but guaranteed, what will be the consequences? Simply put, the flood gates of litigation will open thereby allowing an already aggressive and intolerant political left and gay rights movement to declare legal war upon those organizations and individuals holding to traditional values and biblical authority. In our next post, we will discover this very warning from a nationally known pro-family advocate as well as observe the negative impact that legalization of gay marriage has had upon the basic freedoms of our northern Canadian neighbors.

 

​(To Be Continued…)

 

 Endnotes


  1. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). []
  2. http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/supreme-court-justices-officiated-at-same-sex-ceremonies/ []
  3. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_12_307 []
  4. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/scalias-blistering-dissent-on-doma/277245/ []
  5. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/27/john-roberts-faces-historic-moment-of-truth-as-supreme-court-confronts-obamacare.html []

Comments

  1. Sandy Smith says:

    If Ginsburg does not step down before Obama is replaced with a conservative (hopefully), it seems possible we may have a chance for the new conservative president to appoint a conservative to her place on the bench. She is already ‘sleeping’ on the job. Possibly she will last on the court until after the election.
    Also since this vote against traditional values seems about to pass, and the gay rights groups will be knocking on our church’s door to get married, what shall be our plan in response since we will not acquiesce? Excellent article.

Leave a reply and please keep it professional:)