Share This Article with a Friend!


Stand And Fight The Same-Sex "Marriage" Mandate

Battle of Bunker Hill

Conservatives, and many politically uninvolved Americans who share our values, were stunned by the Supreme Court’s decision to mandate same-sex marriage in all 50 of the United States.

And let’s be clear – the five Justices who made the majority for this outrageous decision didn’t “legalize” same-sex marriage in some passive way – they mandated that all states that don’t currently allow same-sex “marriage” change their existing laws, or pass entirely new laws, to create a new legal system that provides same-sex couples legal structures through which they can “marry.”

This is not only an unprecedented cultural mandate upon the entire country, it is an act that is profoundly antagonistic to our federal constitutional system through which states retained the power to define the structure of civil society within their borders.

What’s more, this intrusion, by a mere five unelected judges, overturns the will of the people, as expressed through state constitutional amendments, that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

In that sense it is a profoundly political – not judicial – act.

Our friend Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has said for years, same-sex "marriage" is but the tip of the iceberg in an attempt to fundamentally alter the cultural and moral landscape of the nation. It is part of an unrelenting war on Christianity and the family by the Left, liberal media, ruling elites and especially the Obama administration. And now, because of the Court's ruling, our religious freedom is more in danger than ever before.

We couldn’t agree more with Tony.

While the media elite would like to make this decision about “equality,” no doubt Tony Perkins is right and the sexual revolutionaries will become even more aggressive to advance their agenda by going after the tax-exempt status of religious nonprofits and the accreditation of religious schools, colleges and universities that are the sources of instruction in traditional values.

Bottom line: What the Supreme Court’s decision mandating same-sex “marriage” is really about is stripping parents, the clergy, and other sources of non-governmental moral guidance, of their power and authority to freely instruct children in traditional Judeo-Christian values.

Don’t believe us?

Take away all of the legal trappings of the decision, and what Justice Kennedy’s opinion says in its simplest terms is, “My colleagues and I have decided the Bible and the Torah and the thousands of years of Western culture from which they are drawn are wrong.”

And once the government decides it is the only legitimate source of morality then religious freedom will evaporate and all within that government's borders must bow to this new source of moral authority.

Simply put, the Supreme Court decision to redefine marriage will force Americans who believe that it is God who determines what is morally right and wrong, to stand against the oppressive power of the government.

The days and weeks ahead will no doubt be full of conflict over how the Supreme Court’s decision will be interpreted – and most importantly enforced.

Hillary Clinton has already praised the Supreme Court decision to mandate same-sex “marriages” and forcefully condemned opponents of the ruling, saying to the GOP presidential field, “Instead of trying to turn back the clock,” Republicans “should be joining us in saying no to discrimination once and for all.”

Observant Christians and Jews will be particularly put to the test and some, such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, have already caved-in to the demands of the secular left that they abandon their beliefs and accept the Supreme Court’s decision as final.

Others, such as we here at CHQ, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, our friends at the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage, and others, see the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex “marriage” for what it is – a profoundly political decision that can be undone through political means.

We are reminded of the Supreme Court case of Worcester v. Georgia (a case regarding the removal of the Cherokee Indians from the State of Georgia).  After Georgia lost in the Supreme Court, President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the decision against the state and instead called on the Cherokees to relocate or fall under Georgia's jurisdiction – directly contradicting the Supreme Court’s decision.

Although Jackson is widely quoted as saying, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it," his actual words to Brigadier General John Coffee were: "The decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate."

Right now the Supreme Court decision will have the full support of the Obama White House. President Obama and his secular liberal allies understand very well that, as President, for the next 18 months or so, he controls the usual agencies governments use to coerce compliance with their policies; the military, law enforcement, the instruction of executive officials, etc.

But that mandate ends when a new President and a new Congress are elected and sworn-in.

Many conservative Americans were profoundly dishearterned by the Supreme Court's embrace of same-sex "marriage." To them we say, this is NOT the time to give up and retreat or to seek the sanctuary of the cloister, now is the time to fight. The way forward is to stand and fight for our values and for our religious freedom, and to make sure we elect a new President who shares our values and respects our religious freedom.

Share this

state nullification of gay marriage

The problem with state nullification of the gay marriage ruling is that the Feds will blackmail them with threats of withholding Federal funds. Politicians fear that more than the voters. Works every time.

Stand And Fight The Same-Sex "Marriage" Mandate

Until Christians are in the streets protesting, they will be viewed as acquiescing. If they are acquiescing, then the soft persecution can be continued and it can be intensified.
Religious Leaders who say 'civil disobedience', but all they mean by that is 'I won't marry homosexuals in any wedding that I do.', are not grasping the civil disobedience that must be in the face of the elite to capture the attention of the people OVER THE HEADS of the media. Political leaders who say "pass this law or pass this amendment" without honesty about the 2/3 or 3/4 majorities needed to accomplish that are simply spinning.
A true political leader will lead a protest in the streets. A true religious leader will lead a protest in his community.

Never give up, Never surrender

I had similar thoughts the other day...

If the US congress can’t straighten out judicial abuse of power, as I see it, there are only 2 options left to the states, and the people. One is civil war, which has been talked about extensively in social media, but no one in their right mind would truly want to go there before all other options were exhausted. The second is for all states with constitutional amendments for marriage between a man and woman as the only legitimate form of marriage, to pass laws making it illegal in their respective state, to cooperate with unconstitutional mandates, laws, or judgements. This would not only apply to marriage of course.

If states are not willing to cooperate with the federal government on matters the state finds unconstitutional, the federal government would have no enforcement power. Some folks would say, well the feds would just send the military, the FBI, and other fed departments to enforce the law. Well, at last count 31 states had marriage amendments in their respective constitutions. I say to the feds, good luck with that, when virtually no state authority is willing to help in those 31 states.

This would just be a form of civil disobedience, and the safest way to force change in a government that no longer listens to the people they are supposed to serve. Neither the military, nor any of the federal departments are large enough to handle this many states, or people. It is a form of anarchy, but a peaceful one.

The government could threaten all it wants, but how are they going to enforce something that the people simply refuse to accommodate? Many folks like McCrory, or the police will say they took an oath to defend and abide by the US constitution, and therefore consider this non compliance against that oath. Well, I myself took that same oath, and served my country for 21 years of my life, but that oath also meant that I would refuse to accommodate unconstitutional laws or orders.

The supreme court is not the final arbiter of constitutionality that everyone assumes it to be, the people are. We are also the ones who have to live with the arrogant decisions that an out of control federal government makes. It is well past time for that to change…

Give em hell

I agree with you.