SCOTUS finds new right to dignity with gay marriage decision

 

The decades-long onslaught of gayness has been like the French “Reign of Terror” … only with a rainbow flag on top of it 

The White House lit up in rainbow colors following the Supreme Court's historic gay marriage ruling Credit: Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post

The White House lit up in rainbow colors following the Supreme Court's historic gay marriage ruling Credit: Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post

By Patti A. Pierucci

On the evening of the Supreme Court’s shocking decision that legalized gay marriage in all 50 states (or all 54 states, if you ask Obama), the White House was aglow in the rainbow-colored lights of homosexuality.

When I first saw this image on TV I thought it was some digital trickery cooked up in Photoshop. But no, the White House was actually bathed in lights that honored and celebrated homosexual sex.

If I could reach back into time and tell my now deceased great-grandmother – who scoffed at the idea of men walking on the moon, calling it a TV stunt – that we now have a president who lights the people’s house, the White House, in the rainbow colors of homosexuality, she would laugh at me and in her broken English say, “Good joke, Patti!”

Yet it is no joke. The Supreme Court has “found” a right to gay marriage in our Constitution that is quite obviously not there. This is sadly reminiscent of the 1973 court that “found” a right to abortion that is also non-existent in our Constitution.

Just two days after the ruling, the online dictionary reference site, www.dictionary.com, had already altered its definition of “marriage” to include … “all of the diverse forms of interpersonal union … and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage.”

This matters, because that new definition will be in our public elementary schools by the start of school this fall. And the gay lobby will no longer have to sneak its agenda into curricula through the stealthy, back-door methods it has classically employed so successfully; it now can waltz it through the front doors of the schools like a same-sex couple walking down the church aisle together.

What will our pastors do when confronted with this question of whether or not to marry gay couples … because confronted they will undoubtedly be? If gay marriage is about civil rights, pastors will be forced to choose between biblical standards or state mandates.

Anyone who thinks President Obama’s Justice Department won’t force this issue is living in the last century. In fact, it began weeks ago. In North Carolina, for instance, the state Senate recently overrode a gubernatorial veto of a bill that would allow magistrates to refuse to marry gay couples as long as they have “a sincerely held religious objection.” The ink on this veto override was still wet when homosexuals challenged it in the courts – and mind you, this was before the highest court in the land ordered all states to marry homosexuals.

In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton told county clerks their religious beliefs could enable them to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. He added that “numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights.”

Good thing he’s stands ready, because “sincerely held religious objections” won’t cut it anymore, now that the Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage is legal everywhere in America. The lawsuits against religious people are right around the corner.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority on the Supreme Court, suggests that opposition to gay marriage is motivated by disrespect. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family,” he writes.

“In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were,” he continued. “As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

He concludes by writing, almost comically, that “the Constitution grants them that right.” Wrong, Justice Kennedy. There is no right to dignity in the Constitution. Or respect, for that matter.

And since when was marriage ever about dignity anyway?

Expect to see a flood of litigation now that gay marriage is a federal “civil right.” We have already seen bakeries, florists, and wedding chapels sued and litigated out of business when they refused to participate in gay wedding ceremonies. And remember, these suits were filed and won by the gay crowd BEFORE the Supreme Court gave them the best ammunition – legal gay marriage from sea to shining sea.

Despite assurances from the Left that “no one is going to hold a gun to a pastor’s head to force him to marry homosexuals,” don’t believe it. They may not use a gun, but they will be exerting legal pressure that can shut down not only churches, but businesses that refuse to honor gay marriage. The possibilities are endless. Lawyers across the land should be planning those big vacations.

During the oral arguments for this case in April, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito asked Obama’s Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, if a vote for gay marriage by the court would require religious colleges to offer housing for gay couples or risk losing their tax-exempt status.
Verrilli responded repeatedly, “I don’t deny this is going to be an issue.”  

For decades Christian Americans have been pushing back against this tidal wave of gay indoctrination. Although experts still say homosexuals make up just two percent of our population, you would never know it by watching TV, where happy gay couples are de rigueur for EVERY show.

The onslaught of gayness has been like the French “Reign of Terror” … only with a rainbow flag on top of it instead of the French flag.

But this gay revolution bears another similarity to the French Revolution: Both were assaults against Christians and biblical morality.

Franklin Graham spoke out immediately against the decision, saying that the Supreme Court is “endorsing sin” and “I’m saddened for our country.” Rev. Graham implies that our leaders, and especially our jurists, care what God thinks about this decision.

With all due respect to Rev. Graham, they obviously could care less.


Patti A. Pierucci is an award-winning writer and the Editor in Chief of Christian Action Network (CAN), a pro-family advocacy group based in Forest, VA. She is co-author with Martin Mawyer, president and founder of CAN, of the Amazon best-seller “Twilight in America,” which details the activities of Islamic terrorist training camps scattered throughout the United States. It can be purchased at TwilightInAmerica.com or Amazon.com in book or Kindle version ©

Published on by Admin.