Christianity,  Culture,  Politics

A Moral and Judicial Travesty

Today’s decision from the Supreme Court is a moral and judicial travesty.

From a legal standpoint, it represents five unelected justices imposing on the nation a new definition of marriage. The judgment is not rooted in sound legal principle but in the opinions of five lawyers arrogating to themselves the right to enact social policy. The Supreme Court has no right to redefine marriage for all 50 states, but that is exactly what it did today.

From a moral standpoint, the decision is a complete subversion of the good, the right, and the true with respect to marriage. Marriage is the covenant union of one man and one woman for life. Its connection to procreation and children has been revealed to us in nature, reason, and common sense. The Bible further reveals that marriage is an icon of the gospel—a symbol of Christ’s covenant love for his church (Ephesians 5:31-32).

The Court’s decision today attempts to turn all of that upside down. As a result, it stands against reason and common sense. More importantly, it stands against the purposes of the One who created marriage to begin with (Genesis 2:24-25).

Although I am disappointed with this decision, I remain confident that Christians will continue to bear witness to the truth about marriage—even if the law of our land is now arrayed against us. We will be in the world, not of the world, for the sake of the world (John 17:15-16, 23). Nothing that the Supreme Court has said today changes any of that.


  • bobbistowellbrown

    With the Supreme Court ruling today on homosexual marriage God has given the U.S. over to the Devil so that the sinful nature will be destroyed I Corinthians 5:5. I think it is a good thing as the government will have to get out of the churches and all Christian ministries. Christians will have to pledge their life and treasure to standing for God’s laws. I expect to see in my lifetime more Christians going to prison in this country.

  • jazzypaul

    You know what, Denny? I wouldn’t even argue with your statement here (not that it would do any good!) But I will take umbrage with your first sentence…

    “From a legal standpoint, it represents five unelected justices imposing on the nation a new definition of marriage.”

    If you want a judge to be as close to impartial as possible, you make sure that they’re appointed, and not elected. You complain about their appointments when the judgements are not in your favor, but you ought to be grateful that they’re appointed every single time that they are. And once you realize that, you’ll also be grateful that the judges whose votes matter the most were appointed after every single vote. Even something as egregious as Citizens United. Or Eminent Domain, or gay marriage.

  • J L Parks

    Agree with you completely, Denny. This is truly a sad day for America. However, as Scripture so clearly states, we knew days like these would be coming, when “evil men will grow worse and worse…” A few thoughts follow…
    1. This is telling us that fundamental Christian churches need to immediately divest themselves of any and all government subsidies and tax-exempt status. To continue to proclaim the truths of the Word of God, we will need to be under the governments’ radar.
    2. As you say, now more than ever, we need to be different, and make a bold stand for God and His Word. He has not changed.
    3. These people need to be saved. Salvation is the only cure for same-sex deviancy. Perhaps we can ask the Lord to give us opportunity to reach the lost for the Savior.
    4. Maranatha. Jesus is coming soon!

    • buddyglass

      “50 years from now, you’ll look just like them.”

      Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. If I had to guess, I’d say that the % of folks in 2065 (i.e. now + 50 years) who believe each state should decide whether to recognize same-sex marriages will be higher than the % of folks in 2017 (i.e. Loving + 50 years) who believe each states should decide whether to recognize interracial marriages.

      The theological basis for opposition to interracial marriage was considerably more flimsy than the theological basis for opposition to same-sex marriage.

      • Chris Ryan

        Buddy, the percent of people who oppose interracial marriage is depressingly, distressingly high today–especially among white evangelicals. Christianity Today reports that nearly 20% of white evangelical Christians think “its bad for society”.

        • buddyglass

          The 20% figure is hard to believe, but without having done any research I can’t speak to whether it’s true.

          In any case, I was talking about society as a whole.

          Same-sex marriage (and more generally homosexuality) just strike me as being more similar to “opposition to abortion” than “racism”. Opposition to abortion hasn’t remained fairly consistent over time.

  • Andrew Alladin

    At this point I’m laughing (bitterly) at all those Evangelicals For Obama, Catholics For Obama, Hipster Christians (sorry, “Follower of Jesus”), and Redeeming The City types who really thought that supporting Obama would be a solid way to demonstrate their newly found Social Justice Street Cred. Where would Tony Campolo, Doug Kmiec, Michael Wear, and Joshua DuBois be when the Justice Department starts forcing churches to perform gay marriages or risk losing their tax exempt status? I know where they would be, of course, but I’m wondering how they would sell it? Perhaps like this: “Obama’s forcing churches to perform gay marriages, but he’s in favor of amnesty and prison reform. “

    • James Stanton

      I’m sure the number of social conservatives who voted for Obama is rather trivial but its interesting to see someone other than a SC justice get the blame for this.

    • buddyglass

      Churches won’t be forced to perform same-sex marriages any time soon. Lose tax-exempt status if they refuse to? Maybe. I don’t see that as likely, but it’s not inconceivable. That’s not quite the same as “being forced”.

    • Roy Fuller

      Actually, both heterosexual and homosexual marriage have the exact same legal basis in our law, see the majority opinion, where Kennedy spells it out, p. 10, quoted below:
      Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.
      See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972);
      Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965).

    • Ken Abbott

      Mad, Mr. Henderson? No. Full of sorrow, certainly, perhaps a little disappointed (but not, truth be told, surprised), and mindful of the words of Thomas Jefferson: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” God is not mocked; there will be an accounting.

      • Roy Fuller

        I am also mindful of this quote from Jefferson: “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

        • Kenneth Abbott

          Well, then, Mr. Fuller, I guess we can all rejoice that we have been liberated from the regimen of our barbarous ancestors in that we no longer regard the word of God as of any account. But are you quite sure that what we have achieved is “progress?”

        • J L Parks

          Well, Mr. Abbott…if you think by his statement “…laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind” Thomas Jefferson was writing with to advocate the legalization of male sodomy and lesbian deviancy, you have an entirely different view of our founding fathers, and the values and morals upon which this country was founded, than I have ever had…

            • Roy Fuller

              Ha. Actually, my quoting of Jefferson was not out of a belief that Jefferson would approve of today’s SCOTUS decision. Rather more of a cautionary tale with regard to quoting of the founders – especially someone like Jefferson when it comes to quotes about God and/or religion. I appreciate much of Jefferson’s political thought, but no orthodox Christian was he. While he was not an atheist, in spite of being accused of such while running for president, he was later claimed by the Unitarians (though he preceded their formal organization by a few years). He called himself a “materialist” – so for evangelical Christians to point to his quotes about God and divine justice seems to misuse him.

      • James Stanton

        Ah, I don’t think you’re wrong in the long run. However, if the SC had ruled the other way would God’s justice remained dormant? There are other countries, after all, where SSM had long been legalized. And if the SC had not ruled in favor of SSM those in gay relationships would have continued as such, no?

        I think this is a clarifying event for Christians in the US. The veil has been torn away but the real work goes on.

    • Brett Cody

      Not mad. Greived. But preparing for the fallout that so-called same sex “marriage” causes because that’s what the church is called to do…be the Light shining in the darkness.

  • buddyglass

    “…it represents five unelected justices…”

    They’re always “unelected” when they decide something opposite how one might have preferred. Funny how that detail is skipped when a decision goes the way one wants.

    For the record, nine unelected justices interpreting the laws of the land is the system the founders put in place. If you don’t like it, then by all means advocate for a constitutional amendment to change how federal judges (including the supreme court justices) are chosen.

    “The Supreme Court has no right to redefine marriage for all 50 states, but that is exactly what it did today. ”

    And, by the way, what it’s done in the past. Or did the court also overstep its bounds in Loving vs. Virginia?

    • Johnny Mason

      “Or did the court also overstep its bounds in Loving vs. Virginia?”

      Roberts answered this objection in his dissent. “Removing racial barriers to marriage therefore did not change what marriage was anymore than integrating schools changed what school was”

      The anti-miscegenation laws were actually redefining marriage by adding a racial component to it.

      • buddyglass

        If anti-miscegenation laws “redefined” marriage by prohibiting marriage by interracial couples, which is what you just said, then dropping those anti-miscegenation laws also “redefined” marriage. Back to a definition that more closely matches God’s.

        • Johnny Mason

          Buddy, you are usually very good at seeing both sides of an issue, but now you are just being argumentative.

    • Sam Hendrickson

      I think it is a case of eisegesis to say DB is upset about their unelectedness or the constitutional structure which made them so. Rather, that these ones used their unelectedness and componentry in the constitutional construct to abuse it, and issue freshly minted constitutional rights. For Kennedy et. al. to claim that essentially the argument was settled (and so they must finalize it) is easily dismantled based on the low number of judicial actions taken by the court system overall on the matter, and more. More debate was occurring in the States, regardless of the number of States that had approved SSM. Genetic studies, child adoption studies, marriage studies, the concerns of the real curtailment of religious liberty (as evinced even by the writings and sayings of those not religious, and even gay), etc. point to a verdict which is premature. Why not let the tide as it were do the sweeping, rather than federalize something without science, or even queer theorist backing? Many thinkers who influence the Same Sex movements have moved away, or have never backed the idea of desires/attractions defining the identity or orientation, seeing these words and hetero/homo sexuality as useful neologisms to get further down the road to whatever sex-related acceptance they are seeking. Sam Hendrickson

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.