I will present my own observations and ideas concerning this below the article.
The horrific nature of this illegitimate decision cannot be overstated
‘Gay Marriage’ Ruling: Evil with a Silver Lining
By Matt Barber -- June 28, 2015
Well, that was predictable. On Friday, with its majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, five judicial imperialists perched high atop the U.S. Supreme Court bench called the Supreme Being a liar. They presumed to invent, out of thin air and through judicial fiat, a “constitutional right” to sin-based “gay marriage.” (Father God, as you
exact Your perfect justice on America, please have mercy upon Your faithful.)
The horrific nature of this illegitimate decision cannot be overstated. It makes a mockery of the institution of marriage, something of which God alone has the authority to design and define. It represents a level of judicial activism unmatched since Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell or Roe v. Wade.
Man-woman marriage, as He designed it, is the metaphor God uses for the relationship between Christ and His Church. In addition to mocking marriage, this decision mocks God. Which is by spiritual design. Satan is laughing himself silly right now. His demonic minions, both above and below, are popping the bubbly and clinking the champagne flutes. Evil has triumphed. For now at least. But not in the end. Because God will not be mocked.And victory is His.
Still, on top of being an arrogant affront to Almighty God, this opinion of five unelected and unaccountable justices is also a constitutional disaster. “The Court’s decision fundamentally rewrites the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to radically redefine the cornerstone institution of marriage, which is older than the Court itself,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel.
The decision also drew sharp criticism from the Court’s four dissenting justices. Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, rightly observed that the activist majority opinion hijacks the democratic process and is not based on the rule of law: “Do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” wrote Roberts.
Justice Scalia similarly called the ruling a “threat to American democracy.” The “pretentious” and “egotistic” decision, he railed, “robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
But I promised a silver lining, and there is one. One that is sure to infuriate the anti-Christian left. The majority opinion emphasized that this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage” should not be construed to trump religious liberty: “Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.
The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so
central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the
family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose
same-sex marriage for other reasons.”
I’m not naïve. We’ll have to see what this actually means in coming years, but when filtered through any honest reading of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause, what it means is that Christians cannot be forced to violate their conscience through compulsory participation in, or recognition of, counterfeit “gay weddings” or “marriages.” Ever.
Of course there’s nothing honest about the five liberals on this court, and Chief Justice Roberts makes that point in his dissent. He expresses skepticism as to the majority’s sincerity: “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views of marriage,” he writes. “The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise‘ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”
“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage,” he continues. “When, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court.” Little doubt indeed.
As many of us have long warned, all this “gay marriage” nonsense was never about “marriage equality.” It was, and remains, a spiritual battle camouflaged in the formal attire of judicial and public policy wrangling. It was always about forcing Christ’s faithful followers, under penalty of law, to abandon biblical truth and embrace sexual sin. The goal of “LGBT” activists and secular progressives has long been to pit the government directly against the free exercise of religion Christianity in particular – and to silence all dissent.
Let me be clear. You will never silence us, and we Christians don’t need liberty crumbs tossed down from some temporal bench on high. Christians, faithful Christians (as opposed to the apostate variety), will not, indeed cannot, have anything whatsoever to do with the wickedness that is “gay marriage,” and we will disobey any man-made law or ruling that presumes to make us do otherwise.
That said, it does provide some consolation to have, in the spirit of Hobby Lobby, this court at least pay lip service, inelegant though it may be, to every American’s God-given constitutional right to freedom of conscience. The one positive thing that came from this ruling is the reaffirmation of First Amendment protections guaranteeing, for instance, that the Christian baker, florist, photographer, et al., cannot be penalized by the government for refusing to participate in sin – for declining to provide goods or services for “gay weddings,” or for otherwise refusing to recognize “gay marriage” for anything other than the evil it represents.
Even so, let us not don our rose-colored glasses. Friday’s ruling comes straight from the pit of Hell. Even with its religious liberty “silver lining,” it has not ended the debate;
it has only just launched it. It has opened the floodgates to anti-Christian persecution. Leftist lawsuit abuse against Christian individuals and organizations will now flow hot like the River Styx.
But don’t despair, my brothers and sisters in Christ. For we who are God’s children have already overcome. Because greater is He Who is in us, than he who is in the world. And greater is He who created marriage, than he who perverts it.
My Observations Concerning This Ruling By The Court
I wish to make it clear that I strongly believe all men are sinners in need of a Savior, and sexual sin is no more or less evil than any other sin because all sin put Jesus Christ on the cross to die a horrible death for "unworthy mankind." I don't hate anyone for being a sinner any more than I would hate someone who has aids or cancer because sin is a VIRUS OF THE SPIRIT as those things are diseases or viruses in the body. However, sin is a personal choice, and unlike a physical virus we sin willfully because our very nature is to sin against what we know to be right. I know that the only cure for that virus is found in Jesus Christ.
That said; I strongly adhere to what the Holy Bible teaches concerning this issue, and so I stand with what is written above. The Bible is explicitly clear in Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 concerning this. In Leviticus 18 homosexual and lesbian sex is called an abomination as is animal sex, and any person who participated in those acts and did not repent of them was taken outside the Israelite Camp and stoned to death. I would have to believe God takes these sins very seriously. The word abomination means a detestable act of a base sort. God is not homophobic. He is sovereign and perfect in all his judgments.
In Romans 1:26-28 God calls homosexual and lesbian sex "burning in lust, against
that which is natural and "vile affections." There can be no mistake in understanding these words and the fact that they are not complimentary but rather strong words that condemn the sin. God established the proper relationship concerning men and women in Genesis 2:24-25 where he uses the term "wife" to describe the female in marriage. The teaching of Jesus reiterates God's view of marriage even though he says nothing specifically about homosexuality or lesbianism or other sexual behaviors. What people fail to understand in regard to how Jesus viewed sexual behavior is that he was God come in human flesh, and as God he spoke clearly in the Old Testament about it and through the apostle Paul in the New Testament as well about it.
For many years before my conversion to Christianity I was involved in a lot of sexual activity that I knew was sinful, and even though my conscience would convict me at times I refused to listen and continued doing what I knew as wrong which was deliberate rebellion against God. All of us have violated our conscience at one time or the other, and anyone who believes otherwise is either lying or deceiving themselves. In this decision the court knew what they were doing. Those who chose to pass the legislation to honor wicked behavior were in violation of God's word, and I believe their conscience was hardened or they simply rejected God's word on this issue. They will have their judgment when all mankind stands before God in all his holiness and power. There will not be anyone on that day challenging God's laws or commands on anything.
I decided to repent of my many sins and put my faith in Jesus Christ almost 43 years ago. I have found God to be loving and faithful to me all these years and heartily recommend that those reading this would repent and trust Jesus for salvation and eternal life. The other option is rebellion against God and eternal damnation in a lake
of fire. It is an individual choice. What will you do?