Well, it happened. The overwhelming majority of American voters have been spat squarely in the face by five representatives of the Judicial Branch of our government, who decided, instead, that they wanted to be the Legislative Branch, and add a new “right” to our Constitution.
In other words, our votes in State Referendums, in which the overwhelming majority of states, voted against “gay marriage”, did not mean squat to the five self-righteous Liberals on the Supreme Court.
The following excerpts, from the dissenting Supreme Coast Justices, are courtesy of nationaljournal.com
Chief Justice John Roberts:
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights over what he viewed as following the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”
Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas joined him in his dissent.
While Roberts said he did not “begrudge” any of the celebrations that would follow the Court ruling, he had serious concerns that the Court had extended its role from constitutional enforcer to activist.
Roberts: “Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples.”
Judge Antonin Scalia:
According to Scalia, the five justices in the majority are using the 14th Amendment in a way that was never intended by its writers. “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so,” he wrote.
“They [the majority] have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.”
Scalia called out the majority for acting like activists, not judges. (He was similarly critical in Thursday’s ruling on health care.) “States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ ‘reasoned judgment,'” he wrote.
Scalia’s scorn went beyond picking apart the majority’s legal judgement. He also made fun of their language.
The majority began its opinion with the line: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”
Scalia wrote that if he ever were to join an opinion that began with that sentence he “would hide my head in a bag,” saying such language was more like the “mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie” than, say, legendary Chief Justice John Marshall.
Elsewhere, the majority wrote “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”
Scalia scoffed at this assertion, saying that even “the nearest hippie” would know that marriage hinders the freedom of intimacy. Here are his words:
Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.
Judge Clarence Thomas:
In his own separate dissent, which Scalia also joined, Justice Clarence Thomas pilloried the majority opinion as “at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our nation were built.”
Kennedy and the Court’s liberal wing are invoking a definition of “liberty” that the Constitution’s framers “would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect.”
“Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government,” Thomas said. “This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.”
Judge Samuel Alito:
In his dissent, Alito argues that gay marriage is not protected in the Constitution under the Due Process Clause because “liberty” only applies to those principles that are rooted in U.S. tradition. His argument is that the concept of gay marriage is new and therefore not included.
“For today’s majority, it does not matter that the right to same-sex marriage lacks deep roots or even that it is contrary to long-established tradition. The Justices in the majority claim the authority to confer constitutional protection upon that right simply because they believe that it is fundamental,” Alito writes.
Alito also reaffirms his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic.
Philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote.
Alito’s belief is also that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children. His argument is:
For millennia, marriage was inextricably linked to the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: procreate. Adherents to different schools of philosophy use different terms to explain why society should formalize marriage and attach special benefits and obligations to persons who marry. Their basic argument is that States formalize and promote marriage, unlike other fulfilling human relationships, in order to encourage potentially procreative conduct to take place within a lasting unit that has long been thought to provide the best atmosphere for raising children.
Now that the majority has ruled in favor of gay marriage, Alito offers a stark warning about future conflict between religious liberty and progressive ideas.
“By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds,” he writes.
If you try to talk to a Liberal about this New Fascism, they will deny that there is any Fascism going on at all. In fact, they will tell you that this is “the will of the people” and they will site Democratically-stacked push polls in order to back their opinion up.
When you ask Liberals if , for example, “homosexual marriage” is the “will of the people”, why did voters in the overwhelming majority of states, including California, vote against it? And, if there is “no Fascism”, what do you call the fact that 2% of the population is having activist judges overturn the actual will of the people in order to get their way, in their attempt to redefine a word that has meant the same thing since time immemorial?
In response, you will usually see their eyes glaze over, like a deer in the headlights, or experience a dramatic pause in posting, if you are on the Internet.
Liberals can not legitimately defend the suppression of the First Amendment Rights of Christian Americans.
Fascism, in any form, remains indefensible, even, when a spineless Supreme Court narrowly sides in favor of popular culture and against God’s Law.
Have you ever heard the story of the frog in the pot of water?
You put a frog in the pot of tap water. You place that pot of tap water on the stove. You slowly increase the heat on that burner in increments, allowing the frog to get adjusted to the rising heat, so that he is content with staying in the pot of water, until he boils.
That is what has happened to America. Gradually, like the frog in the pot of water, we’ve allowed things that we intrinsically know are wrong, to become a part of our popular culture and everyday lives, burning away what were the Traditional American Values, upon which this country was founded, and upon which we were raised.
And now, the country which we have known and loved, all of our lives, is sitting here boiling in a facist stew of our own making.
God, be merciful.
Until He Comes,