“The Supreme Court’s Supreme Blunder”

“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

We now know that certain members of the Supreme Court are not a friend of either God or marriage, which He originated. They probably do not believe that they will be required to render an account for their decisions, but the fact is that God created governments and positions of authority also, and He requires of them justice (Dan. 4:32). The Supreme Court’s decisions regarding homosexual “marriage” denied justice to those who are abiding by the institution which The Divine Ruler over all established. By perverting its original design, the Court proved themselves at odds with both the constitution and an even greater document—the Bible itself.

Furthermore, they have opened the door to defining marriage just about any way that anyone wants to define it. If two people of the same gender have a constitutional “right” (seriously?) to marry, then two or more women have a constitutional “right” to marry one man, several men have a “right” to marry one woman, a collection of men and women have a “right” to marry each other, and human beings have a constitutional “right” to marry animals. If not, why not?

To make such obscene decisions, which fly in the face of their Creator, shows they are unworthy of respect until such time that they can prove themselves to be logical again. If they have no respect for the One Who created all things, including marriage, then they cannot expect any in return.

Why They Did It

This writer has shown himself to be at odds with Bill O’Reilly on various religious matters, and fully expects to take issue with his new book about the life of Christ. But he is correct in his analysis of these recent decisions. On Monday, July 1st, he said on The O’Reilly Factor: “…the Supreme Court has morphed into a political organization, not a body that seeks to uphold the constitution.”

In one case the people of California had voted twice in favor of traditional (this writer prefers Biblical marriage), but some judge (who fancies that his opinion is greater than that of the people) struck down those votes. O’Reilly commented on this case as follows:

The Supremes ruled 5 to 4 that supporters of traditional marriage had no legal standing to challenge the judge who struck it down. Ridiculous? You bet. Absurd.

In other words, rather than looking at the constitution for guidance in making an appropriate decision, the five members of the court found “a way to support their political opinions by manipulating the law.” O’Reilly next showed a clip of Ralph Reed, founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, commenting on the other decision the court ruled on—the one in which they ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. Reed said:

This suggestion that, because somebody wants to affirm the institution of marriage, that they’re, ipso facto, intolerant—by that argument Barack Obama was intolerant 14 months ago, by that argument the 342 members of the House, 85 members of the Senate, including (by the way) Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, who all voted for this law, and Bill Clinton who signed it into law, were intolerant and motivated by an animus and hatred for gays.

On July 2nd, The O’Reilly Factor published the resultes of a poll, which asked the question: “How do you rate the way the Supreme Court is doing its job?” Only 8% answered, “Excellent.” Only 20% were willing to say, “Good.” The Rasmussen poll recorded 39% of the sample saying, “Fair,” and 30% selecting, “Poor.” How about a category called, “Abominable”? The Roberts Court has made three major decisions and has made the wrong decision each time. Calling the Affordable Health Care Act a tax was an equally strange interpretation—especially since the president insisted that it was not a tax.

Regarding marriage, the court has evidently decided to choose political correctness over what the constitution actually says, and it has decided to ignore what the Bible teaches, which serves as the foundation for all law. This attitude on their part will only hasten the demise of this country. It is actually becoming difficult to sing, “God Bless America,” when this nation increasingly turns its back on God with each decision the Supreme Court renders. When they fail, paganism is certain to triumph.

If it is still legal to do so in today’s Supreme Court, perhaps the “justices” ought to take a look at some of the things that our founding fathers believed in and stated unashamedly:

It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor (George Washington).

The rights of the colonists as Christians…may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament (Samuel Adams).

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity (John Adams).

Perhaps the current court ought to take a long look at what America’s first Chief Justice wrote:

The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the Word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts (John Jay).

Would John Jay even be allowed to speak these words before today’s court? If the Court possessed even a modicum of respect for the Holy Bible or the founding of this nation, they would not be rendering such awful decisions. And if they knew what the Bible taught, they would not even entertain the unbiblical notion of marriage between two individuals of the same sex. Perhaps Congress ought to do what they did once before in 1782, when they printed a Bible for America and said:

The United States in Congress assembled… recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States…a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools….

Or would the court consider this action unconstitutional?