By Bob Bennett
USA Today calls Friday’s legalizing of gay marriage by the Supreme Court “A victory for America.” It is in fact an attack on America, in its very fiber, by the American Left.
Consider Obama’s damaging of the Constitution’s balance of powers by repeated (unopposed) intrusions into Congress’s domain; his dismantling of border enforcement and legalization of millions unlawfully in America—financed by Congress; his incitement of nationwide protests against “racist” police; and perhaps worst of all—his conspiring with Congress, with a host of tricks and lies, to cancel some 6 million private policies and saddle America with the freedom-crushing, budget-crunching ObamaCare.
Then observe that the despised law was upheld by SCOTUS a second time, Thursday, via Justice Roberts’s legal ruling that Mark Levin called “drivel.” Surely, any informed American would conclude the Left is carrying out a program of phased destruction of the nation. (I won’t even get into our deranged foreign policy.)
That American might well feel that SCOTUS’s arrogant defiance of 100,000 years of human society and principles in force since our nation’s founding, to force gay marriage on the nation, is yet another act of Left-inspired national destruction.
And he’d be right. Observe that all of the above are acts that weaken the bonds that hold a nation together; this is no different. In spite of the Left’s century of grinding away at our faith, America remains a nation deeply rooted in religion. And the Left well knows: to destroy a tree, you must destroy its roots.
The gay marriage decision is the most brazen attack of all on religion. In effect, the Left has engineered a constitutional amendment that invents a right for gays to marry. The next step is to use legal action to force churches to perform gay marriages. If you don’t believe that, think back to the small bakeries and florists heavily fined and put out of business for refusing—on religious grounds—to serve a gay wedding.
Think back, also, to the Obama Administration’s aggressive litigation against the Little Sisters of the Poor to force them to either pay for abortions or pay crippling IRS fines.
Yes, it’s not only possible—it is apparently the plan. In the case of churches, if they refuse to perform gay marriages, they’ll be fined colossal sums and/or lose their tax deductions.
Chief Justice Roberts (seemingly recovered from his judicial excesses, Thursday) strongly dissented, even reading part of his opinion from the bench, something he has never before done—a signal that this issue was vitally important to him.
Roberts’s problem with the decision is, first, that it usurps the States’ rights to define marriage, by a torturous use of the Due Process Clause.
There is a long history of the Court’s misuse of the Clause, beginning with its first use of “substantive due process to strike down the Missouri Compromise on the ground that legislation restricting the institution of slavery violated the implied rights of slaveholders,” he writes.
“The doctrine that . . . due process authorizes courts to hold laws unconstitutional when they believe the legislature has acted unwisely…has long since been discarded. We have returned to the original constitutional proposition that courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies, who are elected to pass laws.”
He predicted that gays’ quest for acceptance, if indeed that is what they want, will be impeded by “five lawyers” having imposed their vision on the nation:
“Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
By adopting the imaginary concept that the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment confers on gays the right to marry, the Court has set up an inevitable collision with the First Amendment right to “free exercise” of religion.
The Due Process Clause says: “no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Any layperson will see use of this clause to legalize gay marriage as a mere ruse, because anyone knows being “deprived of liberty” means being thrown in the slammer. Roberts agrees:
“Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.
“The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views of marriage.…. 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…. Indeed, the Solicitor General [appearing in support of the petitioners] candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.
“Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”
He also finds problematic the majority’s repeated playing of the “homophobe card”
in its decision:
“The majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate. [It] offers a cursory assurance that it does not intend to disparage people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept same-sex marriage. … [but] with the very next sentence,…the majority explains that “the necessary consequence” of laws codifying the traditional definition of marriage is to “demea[n] or stigmatiz[e]” same-sex couples.
“The majority reiterates such characterizations over and over. By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage—have acted to “lock . . . out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “[d]ignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors.”
He opines that the decision “portray[s] everyone who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted,” and that “These apparent assaults on the character of fairminded people will have an effect, in society and in court.”
Notice, I haven’t mentioned mosques. You know why: because gay activists would never attempt to force their views on Muslims. If they had any such intention, they would’ve brought up the slaughter of gays in countries like Iran long ago.
This is a telling clue that the issue is actually about the Left’s systematic destruction of America. And, of course, the Global Jihad Movement, which practices the hurling of gays from roofs, is partnered with the American Left in tearing down America.
We must now accept that, along with the RINOs in Congress, SCOTUS is also partnered with those who would tear down our nation. Notably, Justice Scalia asserts that the “Supreme court is now a threat to American Democracy.”
Bob Bennett is a New York-based writer who has written op-eds for the Wall Street Journal and the NY Post, and has appeared on Fox and Friends and America’s Newsroom. He has traveled widely and written travel pieces for the NY Post, a cover article for the Jewish Press, and an op-ed for the medical journal Cancer Biotherapy & Radioimmunotherapy. Bob was also award-winning producer of a travel radio show heard on New York stations: WMCA, WNWK and 50,000 watt WOR and the national Sky Angel Network. He now blogs on Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Community and Red State Diaries.