Posts

With Senators Like These, No Wonder America’s In Trouble

As the smear campaign against Judge Brett Kavanaugh continues, it is clear that the anti-Trump resistance has brought out the worst in many Democratic Party Senators. Senators Chris Coons of Delaware and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii are Exhibit A in the cutthroat, gutter-class attacks to which Republicans must put a halt.

First, it was Hirono who told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Kavanaugh’s pro-life beliefs make sexual assault accusations against him believable. The block quote below highlights just one of the at least three times she mentioned Kavanaugh’s pro-life beliefs in a discussion about sexual assault:

TAPPER: Doesn’t Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?

HIRONO: I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases.

As I said, his credibility is already very questionable in my mind and in the minds of a lot of my fellow Judiciary Committee members, the Democrats.

So he comes, and — when I say that he’s very outcome-driven, he has an ideological agenda, is very outcome-driven. And I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplifies his, in my view, inability to be fair in the cases that come before him.

This is a person that is going to be sitting on our Supreme Court, making decisions that will impact women’s reproductive choice. He has a — he very much is against women’s reproductive choice.

TAPPER: Mm-hmm.

HIRONO: And I can tell you two very important cases in which he applied the same standard, but came to totally different results to make it much harder for women to get this kind of coverage.

So there’s — there are so many indications of his own lack of credibility. And I put that in a context.

TAPPER: It sounds to me like you’re saying, because you don’t trust him on policy and because you don’t believe him when he says, for instance, that he does not have an opinion on Roe v. Wade, you don’t believe him about this allegation about what happened at this party in 1982? Is that fair?:

Coons’ comments were, if possible, actually worse than Hirono’s. At least she’s just being a party hack, albeit on a critical issue. (Though she’s also a hypocrite — Hirono is a supporter of Planned Parenthood despite the abortion company’s complicity in hiding sex abuse.) Coons is a Yale Law graduate, which means he knows better than to say that Kavanaugh has the burden of proof regarding innocence.

Yet that’s exactly what he did on MSNBC:

Mr. Coons said that Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez “have nothing to gain” and have put themselves “at legal risk” by accusing Mr. Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in his teen years.

“It is Judge Kavanaugh who is seeking a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and who I think now bears the burden of disproving these allegations,” said Mr. Coons in a Monday interview on MSNBC, “rather than Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez who should be dismissed with slanderous accusations.”

This pathetic effort at #Resistance to President Donald Trump’s excellent nominee would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. It’s past time for the hackery to stop and for Kavanaugh to be approved to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Help us continue holding corporations and non-profits accountable for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission.

The Senate Must Sue Obama to Block the Iran Nuclear Treaty by Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. and Lee S. Bender, Esq.

When we published “How Best to Overturn the Iran Nuclear Pact” in the August 2015 New English Review, we reviewed several options. One proposal suggested by Dr. Robert B. Skalorff entailed direct litigation by Congress before the Supreme Court under provisions of the US Constitution seeking a ruling  treating   the Iran nuclear pact as a  treaty requiring  advise and consent of the Senate . We  wrote:

That proposal entailed independent Congressional litigation on demonstrable Constitutional legal grounds regarding executive overreach. If the Senate was granted standing on direct appeal, based on the B. Altman SCOTUS ruling, it might result in a predisposed SCOTUS rendering a positive ruling thus quashing the Iran nuclear pact. Further, the ruling might unfetter the hands of any successor to President Obama on inauguration day in 2017 to undertake remedial actions. Such actions might reduce the current existential threats to both the US and Israel.

In furtherance of that original proposal we are publishing  the following article by Dr. Robert A. Sklaroff and Lee S. Bender, Esq. which expands upon the original concept noting support from  Constitutional law experts and applicable case citations.

The Senate Must Sue Obama to Block the Iran TREATY

By Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. and Lee S. Bender, Esq.

When Congress returns from recess after Labor Day, one of the most pressing issues on the agenda is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known commonly as “the Iran deal.” Much has been discovered since the Corker-Cardin-Menendez bill was enacted, including the White House’s and State Department’s deceit which influenced the Senate to abandon its constitutionally-provided role regarding treaties.

Now it might take a lawsuit spearheaded by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to reverse not only the damage to the Constitution but also potential damage to America and our allies as a result of the provisions of the Iran nuclear-deal.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has overwhelming justification to sue President Obama over the JCPOA which constitutes a treaty and thereby must be ratified by a 2/3-vote of those present prior to implementation.

Such a suit could ultimately prompt the Supreme Court to disclaim Obama’s portrayal of this document as an Executive Agreement. It could also sustain the overwhelming will of the American people–according to polling data—to trash this “legacy” effort, for reasons that have been exhaustively detailed.

Blocking implementation of the Iran nuclear-deal would thereby necessitate the legislative branch triggering a confrontation between the judicial and the executive branches.

Two essays {authored by RBS} published in The Hill explored the legalities of this initiative, focused on its “treaty” [July 29] and “rule-of-law” [August 25] components.

In the interim [USA Today, August 5], Professor Alan Dershowitz recognized that a Supreme Court opinion challenged the President’s power to enter into long-term deals with foreign powers without the consent of Congress. He cannot avoid Congressional oversight by simply declaring an important deal with foreign powers to be an executive agreement rather than a treaty [Gibbons v. Ogden]:  “[G]eneral and permanent commercial regulations with foreign powers must be made by treaty, but…the particular and temporary regulations of commerce may be made by an agreement of a state with another, or with a foreign power, by the consent of Congress.”

Two other authors, legal-authority Andrew C. McCarthy [National Review Online, July 17] and accomplished-author Caroline B. Glick [Jerusalem Post, July 21] also claimed the deal is a treaty, but none of these columnists proposed a remedy that would force a clash with this out-of-control Obama Administration. Jerry Gordon has detailed, comprehensively, “How Best to Overturn the Iran Nuclear Pact” [New English Review, August 2015].

The drip-drip-drip of news about details of the deal as well as “secret” side arrangements that has emerged this summer congeals into two major rationales for such litigation, addressing both specifics and lack of transparency. Specifically, multiple side-deals between Iran and the IAEA satirize the concept of “anytime, anywhere surveillance” but, perhaps more important, Obama and his cabinet-members “inexplicably” failed to reveal this information to Congress as secrets.  Moreover, the Administration also misled Congress and the American public about the nature of the deal and the resulting preservation of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and right to continue advanced research that will provide it with a bomb when the pact expires in a mere decade to 15 years.

The “legislative intent” of the Corker-Cardin Bill (Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015) was focused exclusively on Iran’s nuclear program, contrasting with the final pact the Administration concluded that was expanded to allow lifting of conventional-weapon sanctions. Iran sought—and was granted—this specific concession at the very end of the negotiations.  This was outside what the Administration had originally advised Congress about the parameters of this deal, focused on nuclear-weapons capability and not conventional weapons (or ICBMs). Thus, the final version of the Iran nuclear-deal encompassed issues, such as weaponization, that the Administration did not disclose to Congress before it debated and passed the Corker-Cardin Bill.

(Other facets of the negotiation were also misrepresented by the Obama Administration prior to when Kerry inked the deal. For example, although release of American prisoners was not ultimately achieved, Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on  January 21, 2015 that the Administration’s negotiators “continue to insist” that Americans held in detention be released.)

This pattern of deception started before the Corker-Cardin Bill was passed in May. It was even maintained by Iran when the Tasmin News agency reported [June 15] “Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Shamkhani reiterated that negotiations between Tehran and six major world powers solely focus on nuclear topics, dismissing any talk of military subjects in the talks.” And, reflecting the persistence of the deception,  it was manifest one week prior to when the deal was signed [July 14] during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing via testimony from Defense Secretary Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dempsey that the arms embargo, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1929, was not to be lifted [July 7].

Thus, overall, absent the ability to review all relevant data, the Senate (1)—cannot render an informed judgment, consistent with its “advise/consent” role, and (2)—cannot be viewed to be facing a 60-day deadline, for the Corker-Cardin Bill mandates that this “clock” start “ticking” only after the database has been completed.

Refusal to provide copies of side-agreements to Congress continues unabated, as per testimony on August 5 by chief-negotiator Wendy Sherman and IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano. We now know why normally-sedate Senator Corker exploded (“We cannot get him to even confirm that we will have physical access inside of Parchin”) because such inspections have been serially outsourced by Obama to the IAEA and then, we learned more recently, by the IAEA to Iran.

The “toughest inspections-regime in history” forces America (and the world) to allow Iran to provide proof that Iran is not making nukes in Iran.

Perhaps more ominous is the dismissive posture adopted by Secretary of State Kerry [July 28] when confronted by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. The innocent hypothetical was unambiguous:  Would he “follow the law” governing existing congressional sanctions if Congress voted to override a veto? The elitist reply challenged rule-of-law:  “I can’t begin to answer that at this point without consulting with the President and determining what the circumstances are.”

Could BHO go rogue?

The ability of the Supreme Court to exercise “judicial review” is rooted in the Supremacy Clause, was affirmed in 1803 [Marbury v. Madison], and has never been tested again to this day.

But, because the Supreme Court does not command any enforcement-military, the remedy for potential lawlessness is unclear. Indeed, this concern would extend to any nullification effort by the President related to the prospect that the Supreme Court would declare the Iran-Nuclear Deal to be a “treaty” rather than the “executive agreement” the President has potentially improperly considered it to be, to skirt congressional oversight and approval.

These concerns were predicted [May 7] and corroborated [July 23] in essays that presage the current crisis [by RBS, both published in The American Thinker]. They were confirmed in an e-mail exchange by noted constitutional scholar, Dr. John C. Eastman [the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at the Dale E. Fowler School of Law at Chapman University and Founding Director of The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence]:First, because only a ‘treaty’ is the Supreme law of the land, a mere executive agreement could not overturn statutorily-imposed sanctions.” Eastman continued in an e-mail, “And neither, in my view, could a change in the constitutionally-mandated default rule for adopting a treaty.  Second, if that is true, then members of the Senate who, collectively, had the votes to prevent ratification of a treaty would have standing to challenge the process that negated their vote.  That’s the Coleman v. Miller case on all fours.” This 1939 landmark decision ensured that Congress was empowered to specify a deadline by which an external entity was to affirm proposed legislation, such as a Constitutional amendment.

The Ottoman-Islamic defeat at the “Gates of Vienna” in 1683 is on the verge of being reversed by Obama/Kerry and their P5+1 partners, again in Vienna; the irony is that the West is validating Iranian-Islamic supremacism. It seems only the U.S. Senate can rescue (Judeo-Christian) Western Civilization from the Administration’s collaboration and perfidy.

The Senate must definitively impose a limit to the President’s executive lawlessness before a constitutional crisis erupts. Resolution by the courts may be the most effective way to check and to balance the scales that Obama has usurped.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. is a physician-activist and may be contacted at rsklaroff@gmail.com.  Lee S. Bender, Esquire, is an attorney, activist and co-author of the book, “Pressing Israel: Media Bias Exposed From A-Z.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Iranian national arrested in Hancock County, Mississippi accused of tackling deputy, making terroristic threats

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Harbinger II: You thought same-sex marriage meant America is going down? Wait a month!

harbinger book coverThe Harbinger was about a series of events that needed explanation in Cahn’s best-selling book that warns of impending judgment. Harbinger II needs little explanation except to note that the Supreme Court decision for same-sex marriage came on a date that resonates with biblical meaning for what’s happening and may be confirmed within weeks.

One reason the Bible is the #1 best-selling book is because most people who read it seriously gain the conviction that it is God’s Word. They also know that the highest court in the U.S. is not really supreme. In the end, God is the Judge and we should pity the poor “justices” whose opinions of what is good for America put it past the tipping point.

The Supreme Court decision came the 9th day of the 4th Jewish month, counting from the new moon crescent. That’s the same date that “there was no bread for the people of the land,” Jeremiah 52:6. This is not about a literal famine in America, but it has a spiritual application. Christ likened bread to God’s Word in Matthew 4:4. In our parallel, we don’t have God’s Word and we are spiritually starving.

We can know the “Supreme” Court decision is Harbinger II a month from now if judgment falls as it did in the chapter above when Solomon’s Temple burned a month later on the 10th day of the 5th month, Jeremiah 52:12. It was the end of an era, like we may be now.

In 70 AD, Herod’s Temple burned, again on the 10th day of the 5th month, according to Josephus. Again that date signaled the end of an era.

That would be July 27 on our calendar. We won’t need to wait for economic collapse that many expect this fall. We won’t need to have a foreign invasion [actually that’s been going on for years, thanks to congress being sold out to a global agenda, and we already have civil and racial strife.

A new book, The Alpha & Omega Bible Code suggests that an earthquake initiates the biblical scenes of Revelation, but we haven’t recognized it because it’s encoded:

  1. It’s encoded as a trumpet in Revelation 1:10, because using the Alpha Code, we find the first place “trumpet” is found in the Bible is Exodus 19:16 when Mount Sinai shook at God’s presence in a mini-Judgment Day in the presence of God and His law.
  2. The earthquake is encoded again as the roaring of the sea in Revelation 1:15 because that’s the context of the call of Isaiah to prophetic office when “the posts of the door moved” but five verses earlier, we see the roaring of the sea (no chapter divisions in original Hebrew text).
  3. The earthquake is encoded as a ‘knock’ in Revelation 3:20 for the lukewarm church of Laodicea that ended in an earthquake circa 63 AD. Type and antitype?
  4. The earthquake is encoded as a lion’s roar in Revelation 6:1 where John heard thunder—it was the Lion of Judah, Rev 4:7; 5:5. The Lord shall roar…the earth shall shake; Joel 3:16.
  5. An “earthquake” occurs before the seven trumpets in Revelation 8:5,6.
  6. An earthquake is again encoded as a lion’s roar before the seven thunders in Revelation 10:3.
  7. An earthquake is shown to initiate “the day of the LORD” in Joel 2:10,11. Zechariah 14:1,5 says, “You shall flee as you fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah.” (#2 above)

This brings up the idea of evacuation. Christ said, “As it was in the days of Lot…the same day that Lot left [fled] Sodom, it rained fire…” Luke 17:28,29. Should Christians consider leaving cities?

Christ said, “When you see the abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong… flee,” Mark 13:14, NIV. Early believers understood Christ’s reference to military and when the Roman army came under Cestius in 66 AD, they fled and were spared the siege by Titus in 70 AD. Military?

What about JADE HELM [Homeland Eradication of Local Militants]? Is this not an abomination that causes desolation? How does our government get away with this except a congress that’s strangely sold out to a New World Order agenda where current freedoms won’t fly?

So when we celebrate our freedoms this coming weekend, it may be bitter-sweet, knowing this may be the last such celebration this country gets.

A major U.S. earthquake on July 27 would bear a double message: “The time of God’s judgment is come  and “the Bridegroom comes, go ye out to meet Him.” Revelation 14:7; Matthew 25:6. The message of judgment is clear, but why the “midnight cry” message from Christ’s wedding parable?

God came as Judge to Egypt where there was a cry at midnight (Exodus 12:12,29,30) and God took Israel out to the wilderness [flee] where they made a covenant and He later said, “I am married to you,” Jeremiah 3:14.

God regarded the covenant as a marriage and Paul included the Exodus in “all those things happened to them for examples…ends of the world.” 1Corinthians 10:1,11.

Christians have misunderstood Christ’s wedding parables. This is implied by the women being asleep with their lights out, Matthew 25:5. But now it’s vital to get it right, because not getting into the marriage implies a serious loss of destiny.

The Alpha Code shows the first use of the midnight cry in Matthew 25:6 is Exodus 12:29,30, so that history is for us as Paul confirmed (above).

In expectancy of possible judgment on the 10th day of the 5th month, Bible-reading Christians and Jews should fast and pray on the 9th of Av—the 5th month as Zechariah 7:5 suggests. That was because the temple was destroyed then. It could be the end of our great society and the beginning of end-times.

In summary, three passages link current harbingers to a need to  flee the cities.

  1. Christ’s warning in Luke 17:28,29. The Supreme Court decision is a link to Lot (Sodom)
  2. Mark 13:14, NIV for military as an abomination that makes U.S. desolate (HELM: July 15)
  3. Zechariah 14:5 links fleeing to an earthquake: July 27? Why not save this article to review then.

The 9th of Av (when many Jews fast and pray, Zech 7:5) falls on Sunday. It would be wonderful if churches everywhere were filled with people who cared enough about America to skip supper and come to church for prayer. Maybe “Wonderful Numberer” arranged it so we have no excuse?

Elijah had the guts to pray for  judgment to fall in order to turn Israel back. Do we? Isn’t it time?

SCOTUS Says You Can Be Sued for Unintentional Discrimination by Walter Olson

Stop calling it fair housing law. If it was ever a matter of fairness, it isn’t now.

Under today’s 5-4 Supreme Court holding in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, you can be held liable for housing discrimination whether or not you or anyone in your organization intended to discriminate.

Instead — to quote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined with the Court’s four liberals in a 5-4 majority — you might have been influenced by “unconscious prejudice” or “stereotyping” when you lent money or rented apartments or carried on appraisal or brokerage or planning functions.

What you did had “disparate impact” on some race or other legally protected group, and now you’re caught up in potentially ruinous litigation in which it’s up to you to show that you had a good reason for what you did and could not have arranged your actions in some other way that had less disparate impact.

The decision is quite broad in its implications. For example, in employment discrimination law, where disparate impact has long been legally established, it is increasingly legally dangerous to ask job applicants about criminal records, or carry out criminal background checks on them before a job offer, for fear of disparate impact.

Is it still safe to ask such questions of prospective tenants in your apartment building? Better ask your lawyer.

The case hinged on statutory interpretation, and as Justice Alito’s dissent makes clear, King v. Burwell wasn’t the only case decided today in which a majority mangled the clear meaning of a law’s text to get the result it wanted.

As Justice Ginsburg was frank enough to note at oral argument, “”If we’re going to be realistic about it…in 1968, when the Fair Housing Act passed, nobody knew anything about disparate impact.”

On the contrary, the law’s text specified that it was banning decisions taken “because of” race, and to find a loophole the majority was obliged to fall back on an incidental clause banning the making “unavailable” of a “dwelling,” which we are meant to believe snuck in a huge new area of liability.

As the majority stresses, many appeals courts did go along with a liberal interpretation. But the Executive Branch did not — in 1988 it took the position before the Court that the law did not permit disparate impact claims — while Congress hedged the issue in later enactments so as to keep all sides on board a compromise.

Despite ridiculous claims (like that in a Vox headline) that the Court today “saved” the Fair Housing Act or that a contrary decision would have “gutted” it, the great majority of litigation under the Act has been on disparate-treatment complaints (which, as Alito notes, can already use disparate impact as evidence of pretext.)

But the Obama administration, as I’ve documented elsewhere, has launched a huge effort to turn disparate-impact law into an engine of revolutionary changes in local government and housing practice, introducing, for example, such concepts as a local government obligation to pursue subsidized federal housing grants and to enact laws forcing private landlords to accept Section 8 tenants.

As the four dissenters make clear, a compliance and litigation nightmare now looms for many in real estate, finance, and local government as they try to dodge liability.

“No matter what [Texas] decides” in the case at hand on locating low-income housing, for example, one or another group “will be able to bring a disparate-impact case” based either on the theory that projects should be put in poorer areas (which enables building more of them) or in affluent areas (which will benefit some future residents).

If you have time to read only one bit of today’s opinion, read Justice Clarence Thomas’s separate dissent. Thomas brilliantly recounts the EEOC’s successful subversion of its own founding statute, culminating in the Court’s profoundly mistaken opinion in Griggs v. Duke Power, the employment case that founded disparate impact theory.

“We should drop the pretense that Griggs’ interpretation of Title VII was legitimate,” he writes. It’s a tour de force — and already being denounced vehemently on the Left.

This post first appeared at Cato.org.


Walter Olson

Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies.

The Left Will Always Blame the GOP on Obamacare

With the 2016 elections right around the corner, conservatives must begin immediately preparing to rebut the massive Democratic Party/mainstream media, symbiotic messaging operation. I read a piece this week by the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that summarizes the far Left’s new Obamacare messaging strategy in the event of a Supreme Court loss in the King v. Burwell (Obamacare subsidies) case.

Here is a short summary of where we are. The far Left is terrified that the Supreme Court is going to rule against the Obama administration in King v. Burwell, essentially voiding the Obamacare subsidies in the states using the federal exchange even though the legislative language in the law regarding the “subsidies” was written this way to punish states for failing to set up state exchanges. The far Left and the Obama administration are disputing this point despite clear, videotaped evidence of Professor Jonathan Gruber, one of Obamacare’s lead architects, stating otherwise.

Now, the Obama administration has never let videotaped evidence of their prior contradicting statements dissuade them from continuing to lie to the American people (i.e. “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.”) but, in this case, their lies are especially egregious because their plan to withhold subsidies from states that refused to set up a state exchange was designed to punish the citizens of that state for not complying with Obamacare. When the punishment backfired because of public opposition to Obamacare, and support for the governors and legislators who refused to comply with its exchange language only increased, they went with plan B: lie. As usual, after their strategic miscalculation they are desperately trying to find a way to blame Republicans for this disaster, although not one Republican in the House or Senate voted for the final version of Obamacare.

The far Left’s messaging strategy to avert political disaster because of their tactical miscalculation regarding the Obamacare subsidies is to say that the Republicans have “taken away” the subsidies and pin the blame on Republicans if the court rules against the Obama administration. But, here’s the catch; the Dems destroyed our already-troubled healthcare system all by themselves by unilaterally supporting Obamacare. The reason the Obamacare “subsidies” (which are your tax payer dollars given back to you after the government takes a cut) are necessary is because insurance costs are exploding because Obamacare forces Americans to buy expensive insurance they do not want and do not need. And the reason these “subsidies” may be taken away is because the Democrats unilaterally wrote and passed the law this way to punish Americans for resisting this legislative debacle.

Unsurprisingly, when you combine the mandate to purchase health insurance policies, which included multiple unwanted and unneeded services with the community rating and guaranteed issue provisions designed to redistribute costs according to government edicts, you have a recipe for explosive healthcare cost growth. Of course, none of this was a mystery to the Republican Party when they warned America about the coming storm of healthcare premium hikes, a warning the mainstream media largely downplayed to ensure the “wizard” stayed well-hidden behind the curtain.

So here it is in a nutshell: Obamacare was shoved down your throats using parliamentary trickery. Obamacare forced you to buy expensive insurance you don’t want or need at dramatically inflated costs to compensate for the redistributive, big-government, effort to price-control the health insurance market. Obamacare taxed you to gather a honey pot of money. Obamacare then used this honey pot of taxpayer money to “give back” to Americans to pay for their new, and more expensive insurance.

You will never fix this legislative disaster by doubling down on absurdity. The economics won’t work because they can’t work. The Republican Party must prepare their counter message right now to explain to the American people the horrible tsunami that Obamacare has created. If we allow the far Left to continue to distort markets, engage in massive income redistribution operations, and instill more big-government coercion schemes to force compliance on the American people by simply pledging to prolong the misery by “fixing” the subsidy system and continuing the misery, then we are no better than the president who lied to us to sell us this jalopy.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The feature image of the Supreme Court building is by Tom Williams | AP Photo.

Anti Bible Christians

Homosexual marriage is gaining some strange allies. “Christians” who reject what the Bible says on the subject.

Ten things you need to know about the U.S. Supreme Court “gay marriage” case being heard April 28, 2015

On April 28 the US Supreme Court case will hear oral arguments for the case that will essentially decide whether “gay marriage” is a previously unknown “fundamental right” enshrined in the US Constitution, similar to the Court’s 1973 abortion ruling.

The US Supreme Court building will be ground zero for the latest assault on the nation’s culture.

What was once a fringe, unthinkable idea is now on the verge of being imposed on the entire nation.

What is happening? Here are ten things to know about this case:

1. How we got to this point

The popular sentiment against “gay marriage” in the United States has been overwhelmingly one-sided at the ballot box. Since 1998, 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning it. Some of these amendments were passed by huge margins (as high as 80%). This appeared to everyone to be an insurmountable obstacle to the “gay marriage” movement.

After losing in state after state, the homosexual movement realized that it could never overturn these amendments legitimately. In very blue states, using massive amounts of money, they were able to successfully lobby legislatures and sway elections. But the amendments across the country were a problem.

So they decided to focus on perfecting the strategy that worked in Massachusetts in 2003: using the courts and hand-picked activist judges, along with very shrewd manipulation of the legal process and well-funded legal teams and political strategists. They crafted a plan to get the state amendments declared unconstitutional.

This strategy took advantage of the LGBT lobby’s well-funded propaganda push over the last few decades in law schools, law firms, and judicial chambers, as well as a fresh new generation of radical federal judges appointed by Barack Obama.

Starting with California in 2009, where a homosexual judge overturned the Proposition 8 vote, they soon picked up momentum. Across the country, the various cases began sailing through the state and federal courts largely unimpeded. It was quite frightening for all of us to watch.

Other factors helped keep it going. The almost universal unwillingness of the legal teams on the pro-family side to aggressively confront the other side’s arguments gave them a free pass on what could have been difficult issues to overcome. And a number of pro-gay “marriage” Democrat (and RINO Republican) Governors and Attorneys-General simply refused to properly defend the cases and/or appeal them after losing.

Using both state and federal courts, the LGBT lobby has now gotten activist courts to “overturn” 26 of the 30 state constitutional amendments. (Some of these cases are still being appealed.)

But on November 6, 2014, their string of successes hit a snag, as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Ohio constitutional amendment. However, since this disagreed with the other Federal District Court rulings, it bumped the case up to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it and make a broad decision.

2. How the 14th Amendment is used to push the radical agenda in the courts

In all these cases (as in countless other “progressive” legal challenges over the years) the radicals have used twisted interpretations of the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment to advance their agenda through the courts.

The Fourteenth Amendment says:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The “due process” and the “equal protection” clauses are the hammers used to smash the existing laws and constitutional amendments. Along with that, the LGBT lawyers start with the assumption (which our side does not refute) that “sexual orientation” constitutes a class of citizen (based on an immutable characteristic, etc).

Regarding the “equal protection” argument: They argue that “gays” are not allowed to marry the ones they love, but heterosexuals are. They say that “gays” are thus “demeaned,” made “second class citizens,” and kept “unequal” – and this causes them terrible harm.

They further argue that not recognizing “gay marriages” from other states is a violation of due process because of the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause.

Of course, this is all legal nonsense. The answer to their “equal protection” argument is simple: Under the law, every person can only marry someone of the opposite sex. The marriage laws apply to every person equally. No legal expert we’ve consulted has disagreed with us on that reasoning. And everyone gets the same “due process” under it. Unfortunately, to our knowledge these points are rarely used to buttress our side’s argument.

Furthermore, the “full faith and credit” clause was never meant to be used to alter the meaning of the word marriage (i.e., plural marriages, incestuous marriages, marriages to young children), but only the application to a marriage case (or a divorce, etc.,) where the meaning of the word marriage was commonly agreed upon. It’s pretty simple – unless you’re an activist judge.

3. What this case is specifically meant to decide

The case is officially named Obergefell v. Hodges, which is a consolidation of four “gay marriage” cases previously brought before the Sixth Circuit.

According to the court documents, this case addresses only two specific questions:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

On April 28, a total of 90 minutes is allotted for oral argument on question #1, and a total of 60 minutes is allotted for oral argument on question #2. As discussed above, in any normal circumstance this would be a no-brainer.

Not surprisingly, there have been dozens of amicus briefs filed for this case. (You can read them here.) Most of those filed by our side discuss the importance of marriage in society, the historical roots of marriage, how imposing “gay marriage” would divide the country, children needing a father and a mother, etc. None that we’ve seen actually addresses the two questions regarding the Fourteenth Amendment which this case is about. We can only surmise that people are assuming that the Justices are not actually focusing on strict constitutional law but on these unrelated issues.

4. The lawyers arguing this case on April 28

The competition to represent the pro-family side was definitely not as intense as for the “gay marriage side.”

Arguing for the pro-family side:  Eric E. Murphy is the current Ohio State Solicitor, who won the appeal before the Sixth Circuit after losing in District Court. John J. Bursch was Michigan State Solicitor from 2011-2013 and has argued eight times before the US Supreme Court. According to news reports, Bursch’s current firm, Warner Norcross & Judd, supports “gay marriage” and has refused to be involved in this case to help him.

Both attorneys have a good reputation for competence.

Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor
Office of the Attorney General
30 East Broad Street, 17th Fl.
Columbus, OH  43215-3428
(614) 466-8980
eric.murphy@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

John J. Bursch
Michigan Dept of Attorney General
P.O. Box 30212
Lansing, MI  48909
(517) 373-1124
BurschJ@michigan.gov

Arguing for the homosexual “marriage” side:  Alphonse A. Gerhardstein is a prominent civil rights attorney from Cincinnati. Mary Bonauto is the celebrity lesbian attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who won the original Goodridge “gay marriage” case in Massachusetts in 2003. We at MassResistance know Bonauto well. She argued the lawsuit against us (unsuccessfully) in the infamous “Fistgate” case, and we have debated her on television.

We don’t know much about Gerhardstein. In our opinion, Bonauto is not particularly impressive.

Alphonse A. Gerhardstein
Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA
432 Walnut St., Suite 400
Cincinnati, OH  45202
(513) 621-0779
agerhardstein@gbfirm.com

Mary L. Bonauto
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
30 Winter Street, Suite 800
Boston, MA  02108
(617) 426-1350
mbonauto@glad.org

(Contact information is from Supreme Court filings.)

5. Anticipated problems with our side’s arguments

The other side’s arguments rarely bother dealing with the strict constitutional meaning of the text in question. They are almost exclusively based on the assumption that “sexual orientation” constitutes a legitimate legal “class” of people who are “born that way,” and as such have innate rights as a “class.” The concept of a “class” of people is foreign to the text of the Constitution. But it has nevertheless been accepted by courts for decades and undoubtedly by a number of the Supreme Court Justices.

That concept must be vigorously confronted and debunked. Unfortunately, our lawyers have been afraid to do that. Instead they concede to it and attempt to make a persuasive argument within those absurd boundaries — i.e., every child needs a mother and father, marriage is an institution for procreation, etc. This strategy almost always fails.

Why does our side avoid a strong argument? The answer falls into two categories:

1. Fear of being accused of “animus.” Our lawyers have internalized the idea that any perception of “animus towards gays” in their arguments will alienate the Justices. After all, gays are a “class” of people. This forces out any discussion of anything that debunks that, such as the horrible medical consequences associated with homosexual behavior: diseases, addictions, mental health problems, domestic violence, lower life expectancy, etc. Or any suggestion that is an immoral, unnatural perversion. Or the proven damage to children raised in same-sex households.

2. Pandering to “rational basis.” There is an extra-constitutional concept that judges have the authority to overturn a law if it doesn’t appear rational to them. Whether or not it was “rational” to a legislature or to the people makes no difference. Thus, the LGBT lawyers simply state that it’s “not rational” to exclude the class of “gays” from marrying whomever they want. It’s been one the basis for overturning constitutional marriage amendments. Our lawyers fear being judged “irrational” if they bring up the uncomfortable aspects of homosexuality, so they stick to the “comfortable” arguments.

It’s about time to quit doing what doesn’t work. Our fear, unfortunately, is that the lawyers on our side have been working closely with pro-family establishment lawyers in Washington DC (and we all know who they are) who are anything but aggressive or confrontational on these issues.

6. When the Court will issue a decision

The Court will issue its ruling before its current term ends in late June – i.e., within two months.

7. Why Justices Ginsburg and Kagan must legally recuse themselves from this case

Federal law 28 U.S. Code § 455 states:

Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

In the past year Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have performed same-sex “weddings.”  Ginsburg told people that the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” reflects “the genius of our Constitution.”

Kagan’s aggressive advocacy for LGBT “rights” goes back to her years as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009), and is thoroughly documented in our MassResistance report.

Ginsburg and Kagan are unquestionably biased on this issue and by law mustdisqualify themselves from this case. Failure to do would call into question the legitimacy of the (feared) ruling on this case, at the very least. Furthermore, a near-universal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process” clause(above) includes the right of impartial court proceedings. Having biased judges violates that.

Motion for Recusal. We have been informed that Attorney Andy Schlafly (son of Phyllis Schlafly) has drafted a Motion for Recusal, under section 28 USC 144,which will be filed by one of the state Attorneys-Generals in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan or Kentucky who have standing in the case.  According to Mr. Schlafly, “This will be the first time in the history of our country that a Motion for Recusal will have been filed against U.S. Supreme Court Justices because the above codes are for Federal District Judges, yet the principle of recusal can be expanded to all federal judges including Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

8. Bill filed in Congress to remove the Court’s jurisdiction on marriage

It is possible for Congress to restrict the Federal Courts from hearing certain types of cases.

Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution gives Congress the ability to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and federal courts:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

In the case of marriage, this probably should have been done at least a decade ago. However, this past week, some action was started.

Rep. Steve King, (R-Iowa), filed a bill to block the federal courts, including the U.S Supreme Court, from hearing or deciding cases involving the definition of marriage.

Rep. King’s bill is titled Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015. “This bill strips federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases related to marriage. The effect of the bill would prevent federal courts from hearing marriage cases, leaving the issue to the States where it properly belongs,” said Rep. King on his website.

Will the RINO Republican leadership in the US House and Senate go along with it? We will see. And then Obama must sign it …

9. The latest in the Court’s long history of illegitimate usurpation of power

The problem of the federal courts acting as unelected rulers — contrary to the intent of the Constitution — is not new. In 1861, in his first Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln condemned the Supreme Court’s power grab then:

If the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Over the last several decades it’s only gotten further out-of-control.

In 2005, the Hoover Institution published a paper by Lino Graglia, a law professor at the University of Texas, titled “Constitutional Law without the Constitution: The Supreme Court’s Remaking of America” that described it very well. An excerpt from that article:

The central fact of contemporary constitutional law, however, is that it has very little to do with the Constitution. Nearly all the Supreme Court’s rulings of unconstitutionality have little or no basis in, and are sometimes in direct violation of, the Constitution. Their actual basis is nothing more than the policy preferences of a majority of the Court’s nine justices. The power to assert that the Constitution prohibits any policy choice of which they disapprove has enabled the justices to make themselves the final lawmakers on any public policy issue that they choose to remove from the ordinary political process and to assign for decision to themselves. Over the past half-century the justices have chosen to make themselves the final lawmakers on most basic issues of domestic social policy in American society. These include issues literally of life and death, as in the Court’s decisions on contraception, abortion, capital punishment, and assisted suicide; issues of public order, as in its decisions on criminal procedure, public demonstrations, and vagrancy control; and issues of public morality, as in its decisions on pornography and homosexuality. These are the issues that determine the basic values, nature, and quality of a society. In essence, the Court now performs in the American system of government a role similar to that performed by the Grand Council of Ayatollahs in the Iranian system: voting takes place and representatives of the people are elected as lawmakers, but the decisions they reach on basic issues of social policy are permitted to prevail only so long as they are not disallowed by the system’s highest authority.

That’s what we’ve been up against: Nine justices appointed for life who have made themselves the unelected legislators over us all.

10. Immense pressure from the homosexual movement

It’s difficult to describe the enormous amounts of money and sophisticated planning, political maneuvering, and pressure tactics that the homosexual lobby has used in this nationwide march through the federal courts. Millions of dollars have flowed to them from major US corporations and wealthy donors.  Adding to that is the flood of major media support (including even FOX News!) that the LGBT movement enjoys. Needless to say, it’s unbelievably one-sided.

On the other hand, most wealthy conservative donors have made their peace with the LGBT movement and have abandoned their support at a time when it’s needed most. And virtually no corporations donate money to the pro-family side of this issue.

The LGBT movement has used its resources and power very aggressively. In just the last several weeks, hundreds of corporations and high-profile politicians, including Republicans, have publicly told the Supreme Court that they want “gay marriage” imposed on America by the judiciary. Virtually the nation’s entire legal community now refuses to even engage cases involving challenges to “gay marriage” — an unprecedented turn of events.

Will this push a majority of the Supreme Court Justices over the top? In any other time in history, this case would have been laughed out of any courtroom. So anything is possible.

What do we do next?

By any objective measure, this whole case is a mockery of actual Constitutional law. Yet, the odds are that Ginsburg and Kagan will not disqualify themselves and enough of the rest of the judges will rule to force this insanity on all of America — and which among other things will surely lead to the further persecution of people of faith.

Should the worst happen, we’ll certainly have it rubbed in our faces as quickly as possible. As happened in Massachusetts in 2003, the first thing we will see will be adolescent screams of joy and jumping in the streets by the homosexual radicals, celebrated spectacularly in the mainstream media.

But what about our side? We have to fight back, that’s for sure.

What does that mean? There has been a lot of talk about pro-family “civil disobedience” and “taking to the streets.” But let’s be honest. When the Left threatens civil disobedience the local police schedule double shifts (often to protect them). But when we do it, nobody really pays attention. To most conservatives civil disobedience is not mowing your lawn for three weeks or posting strong articles on FaceBook – not exactly rioting.

And the legal system will surely come down even harder on anyone disobeying the new rulings, as well as state and local non-discrimination ordinances.

MassResistance has some ideas. But let’s hope the worst doesn’t happen.

Is God Behind Ominous Signs for 2015?

Only He can do the Solar Eclipse and Passover Blood Moon.

The unique timing of a solar and lunar eclipse to mark the beginning of the biblical year in the spring is an omen of when He did so in Egypt when judgment fell as Israel put blood on their doorpost two weeks later at Passover. This spring’s Passover will see a “blood moon”–a token of judgment?

Wasn’t it God who said, “The sun shall be darkened and the moon turned into blood before…the day of the Lord,” Joel 2:31. It will happen this spring!

Furthermore, the solar eclipse on March 20 and a “blood moon” two weeks later on Passover supports this year as a unique parallel to Exodus 12:2 when God indicated the beginning of the biblical year and two weeks later, Israel put blood on their doorposts for Passover, verse 7.

And what is Passover? It’s a time of judgment. God said then, “I will execute judgment,” Exodus 12:12. Will He do it for America?

Billy Graham said, If God waits much longer, He will have to apologize to Sodom. Many cultures have a problem with homosexuality, but Sodom “paraded” it, Isaiah 3:9, NIV. Welcome to the US where gay parades flaunt sin as Sodom did.

When asked about the sins of “the end of the world,” Christ said to “learn a parable of the fig tree,” Matthew 24:32. A day or so earlier He had cursed a fig tree that offered promise of fruit because of its many leaves and the nature of the tree in that locality, but it, like the Jewish nation then, was fruitless with empty promises.

Can we see any parallel to America today? Given great light and a Constitution like the 10 Commandments that favors self-government so there is little need for others to tell us what to do. But preachers failed America as they depreciated the 10 Commandments as the works of the law that do not save us.

It’s true that we can’t earn salvation by keeping the 10 Commandments, but as a standard to live by, we need them and we need government to support them, but we have a “Supreme Court” that favors opposing principles destined for the take-down of America.

The majority of the Supreme Court justices are Catholic and the majority of congress is catholic (little “c”–not Roman Catholic, but universal—go along to get along, with no stand except for political gain.) And how we got a Muslim bisexual in the White House with a fabricated birth certificate is amazing.

Just as Christ gave a sign of the times by cursing a fruitless fig tree and the next day it was withered, we are about to see a rapid withering of America with an onset of judgment. Many have predicted it, including Billy Graham, but it has to have biblical timing.

Harold Camping was probably right with his idea of http://MayJudgmentDay.com but wrong to connect his May date to a rapture and he didn’t have the advantage of the unique timing for the solar and lunar eclipses that will mark this spring.

EDITORS NOTE: Dr. Richard Ruhling offers a dozen parallels of the US to Egypt, that received the plagues of God’s judgments, in his ebook, Exodus 2, available as a gift on Saturday, January 3 at http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EN63UR2 He also offers The Fall of America free January 3 at http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L1V2I84 (both 99 cents regular price)

Why Are “Gay” Activists Freaking Out over the Hobby Lobby ruling? by Peter LaBarbera

It’s easy to understand why hard-core feminists with their frenzied, overblown “War on Women” rhetoric would be outraged by the Supreme Court upholding Hobby Lobby’s right as a Christian-run corporation not to be forced to provide abortifacients to its employees through an Obama-care mandate. (See Hillary’s misinformation on the decision HERE.) But why are liberal “gay” activists freaking out over the Hobby Lobby ruling?

The case was never about denying women birth control, but you wouldn’t know that from the “reporting” by liberal media and hyperventilating “progressive” bloggers. Hobby Lobby still provides 16 forms of birth control as a health benefit to its employees, but its founders—along with another Christian-owned corporation, Conestoga Wood Specialists—sued HHS over being forced to provide four contraceptive methods that could terminate a fertilized egg.

Hobby Lobby’s founders, David and Barbara Green, are committed Christians who believe that life begins at conception and should be protected. To quote the Court decision, “Hobby Lobby’s statement of purpose commits the Greens to ‘[h]onoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.’” So strong is the Greens’ commitment to Jesus Christ that they have lost countless millions of dollars in profits over the years by closing their 500 craft stores nationwide on Sunday.

Now, one would think that obtaining cheap, subsidized contraception would be low on the priority list for homosexuals, seeing that two men or two women by themselves cannot produce a child. Nevertheless, Big Gay Inc is in a tizzy over the Supreme Court decision—because Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby isn’t really about contraceptives but rather whether Americans like the Greens will be free to live out their religious convictions.

Immediately after the decision, feminists flew into a rage, circulating crude versions of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent and distortions about women being denied birth control by their “male bosses.” Too bad most Americans will never read the actual Hobby Lobby decision—which lays out two diametrically opposed, competing visions about freedom of conscience and the role of government in these United States.

Freedom of conscience vs. Big Government

Hobby-Lobby_store-300x197

Hobby Lobby’s owners, David and Barbara Green, seek to use their business to glorify Jesus Christ. Their 500 stores across the country are closed on Sundays, costing the Greens many millions of dollars in profits.

On the side of preserving and even expanding Americans’ religious liberty were five judges: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. In his concurring opinion Kennedy writes:

“In our constitutional tradition, freedom means that all persons have the right to believe or strive to believe in a divine creator and a divine law. For those who choose this course, free exercise is essential in preserving their own dignity and in striving for a self-definition shaped by their religious precepts. Free exercise in this sense implicates more than just freedom of belief….It means, too, the right to express those beliefs and to establish one’s religious (or non-religious) self-definition in the political, civic, and economic life of our larger community.”

On the other side—of Big Government overriding citizens’ religious beliefs, restricting conscience exemptions to federal mandates, and putting federal power behind expanded access to entitlements–were Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan. In fact, Ginsburg spends nearly two pages in her dissent [see pp. 24-25] defending the idea that Obama-care’s provision of subsidies for IUD’s (intrauterine devices) –one of the four contraceptives resisted by Hobby Lobby as a potential abortifacient—is a “compelling government interest.”

As much as Ginsburg believes the majority’s “immoderate” reading of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is too broad, hers is too narrow: she ends by arguing that exemptions under the RFRA should be limited to explicitly religious organizations—leaving for-profit Christian businessmen like the Greens unprotected.

The bigger government gets–in both its “social justice” mission and the amount of goodies it gives out as “entitlements”—the greater the threat to Americans’ right to freely exercise their faith. This is precisely why homosexual activists are nervous about Hobby Lobby’s victory. If the nation’s highest court grants that even very large “closely held” family businesses like Hobby Lobby (which has more than 13,000 employees) possess a religious liberty claim under RFRA, then surely small family businesses like Elane Photography in New Mexico—owned by Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin—should have the right not to use their creative talents to serve homosexual “weddings,” which violate their Christian faith.

Sure, Justice Alito explicitly states that the Hobby Lobby decision is narrow and does not apply to exemptions from nondiscrimination laws. But reading the majority’s language, it is hard to imagine that the same five Supreme Court judges would force mom-and-pop bakeries—or Christian husband-and-wife photographers like the Huguenins—to violate their faith by forcing them to participate in immoral “gay weddings.”

Ginsburg, on the other hand, is quite ready to deny Christian-owned businesses the freedom to live out their convictions in the public square. Why? Because they make a profit—precisely the legal dichotomy shot down by Alito and his four allies on the Court. Ginsburg specifically cites the Elane Photograpy case as evidence of the slippery slope of RFRA/religious-liberty legal claims that she believes will result from the Hobby Lobby decision.

Some libertarian homosexuals like University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter advocate for limited religious exemptions to pro-homosexual nondiscrimination laws. But other, left-leaning homosexual activists—far more vocal and dominant in the LGBT political sphere—are on record defending the absurd proposition that faith-impelled small businessmen who refuse to serve homosexual “weddings” are the moral equivalent of the KKK, resurrecting an “anti-gay” version of Jim Crow laws.

Because, you see, not being able to use the government to force devout Christians, Orthodox Jews or Muslims to take pictures at or bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding”—when there are plenty of competing wedding businesses that would gladly do so–is analogous to Blacks in the 50’s being denied the use of “Whites Only” public restrooms and water fountains. Right. Go ahead and try making that case to a Black American.

Homosexual militant Wayne Besen denounced Hobby Lobby as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever: “Because of this decision, business owners will have enormous leverage to impose their religious beliefs in the workplace, and to coerce employees into abiding by them,” he warned ominously. Besen is hardly alone on the LGBT side in arguing that anyone who enters the stream of commerce—essentially every small business—should be barred legally from “discriminating” against homosexuals.

Last year, the New Mexico supreme court essentially agreed with Besen by unanimously upholding the Huguenin’s “anti-gay discrimination” conviction (including a $6,000 fine) for politely declining to shoot photos at a lesbian “commitment ceremony.” One of the justices, Richard Bosson, asserted in a concurring opinion against the Christian photographers: “In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.” That, the judge said, is the “price of citizenship.”

One Nation, under Tolerance?

One wonders: is this the same America that was founded by men and women fleeing religious persecution and government tyranny? Incidentally, the same Wayne Besen above is leading the “gay” activist crusade to ban pro-heterosexual change therapy for minors—succeeding in California and New Jersey. Besen applauded the Supreme Court for denying cert on a legal challenge to the California case, thus paving the way for the ex-“gay” therapy ban in that state. This is yet another LGBT assault on liberty, self-determination and parental rights.

The reality is, religious and moral freedom are in grave danger in the USA. Pro-life advocates must realize that powerful homosexual groups like Human Rights Campaign—who have long worked hand-in-hand with the pro-abortion lobby—are now joining with radical feminists to deny religious Americans their right to refuse pro-abortion and pro-homosexual government mandates.

I believe Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby portends well for the right of small-business-owning traditionalists to preserve at least some of their Christian principles and integrity by not celebrating sexual immorality. However, pro-family advocates should not get too excited about the Supreme Court—which has already seriously constricted Americans’ freedom to organize against pro-homosexual laws. (See Roemer v. Evans, a 1996 Court decision written by Justice Kennedy that struck down Amendment Two, a statewide measure passed by Colorado voters that barred all levels of state government from enacting “special rights” laws based on homosexuality.)

Justice Kennedy: Hero to Homosexuals

The same Justice Anthony Kennedy who sided with the Hobby Lobby majority also wrote theatrocious 5-4 decision in United States v. Windsor eviscerating DOMA , the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by Bill Clinton. That paved the way for pro-homosexual-“marriage” judges across the United States to overturn popular defense-of-marriage amendments and laws in one state after another, most recently in Kentucky.

Kennedy is regarded as a hero by LGBT activists, the brave enforcer of their fallacious ‘homosexuality-as-a-civil-right’ equation. In striking down a core provision of DOMA, he sounded like a “gay “ activist as he arrogantly portrayed opponents of same-sex “marriage”—even the congressional creators of DOMA—as hateful bigots insensitive to the plight of homosexual-led families. Cleary, Kennedy believes that allowing homosexuals to “marry” is a “compelling government interest” —which is why many veteran conservative observers like Maggie Gallagherexpect to see the Supreme Court nationalize “same-sex marriage” when the appeals of judicial take-downs of state marriage amendments collectively reach the Court in the not too distant future.

If Kennedy again aligns with the four judges who dissented on Hobby Lobby to create a federal “constitutional right” for homosexuals to “marry”—thus overriding those state amendments—it will mean that millions upon millions of business owners effectively would be forced to provide marital-type benefits for their homosexual employees. To many people of faith, this equates to rewarding sexual immorality with their company’s hard-earned profits, of which they are stewards and through which they seek to honor God.

Christians and religious-minded citizens don’t leave their faith at home or in church—and they shouldn’t lose their First Amendment liberties—just because they make money. This is the essence of the Hobby Lobby decision, but how will it fare against the rapidly emerging liberal legal consensus of homosexual “marriage” as a supposed constitutionally protected “right”?

Most Americans have not thought through the far-reaching ramifications of legalizing “gay marriage.” For one, every child in a public school will be taught that “marriage” between two men or two women is morally equivalent to the real thing. And if “gay” relationships are equal, according to the Left’s simplistic “Love is Love” formula, then homosexual sex must be taught alongside natural sex in health classes. (Remember: we mustn’t judge!) Social engineering of this sort deeply offends faith-motivated parents and it will surely lead to escalating legal challenges pitting religious freedom against “gay” activism.

The “zero-sum game“ cultural war between First Amendment/religious liberties and homosexual “rights” in America will go on for decades. Homosexual activist lawyers are playing for keeps and expect to win. We should be thankful for the Hobby Lobby victory, but sober about the direction of U.S. courts. For as the Greens, Huguenins and many others like them have learned the hard way, “diversity” is liberal code for mandatory “progressive” conformity, and the New Tolerance isn’t really tolerant after all.

ABOUT PETER LABARBERA

Peter LaBarbera is a former reporter for the Washington Times and is president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH.org), based outside Chicago. He can be reached at americansfortruth@gmail.com or by phone at 312-324-3787.

RELATED ARTICLE: Corporation wants to know if employees are ‘ally’ of homosexuals

Massachusetts abortion clinic “buffer zone” law now before U.S. Supreme Court

Could likely be overturned, despite “big lie” strategy by activists. National implications. Could a big defeat for the national abortion lobby be coming?

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the case that could overturn the so-called“buffer zone” law in Massachusetts. Experts across the political spectrum are saying that the Court is very likely to strike it down — affecting similar laws across the country. It would also be a victory for a group of unbelievably dedicated pro-life activists in one of the most pro-abortion states in America.

Pro-lifers stand behind yellow line 35 feet from abortion clinic entrance as uniformed Planned Parenthood guard (left) watches.

This case, McCullen v Coakley, has generated a lot of high-profile emotion among the pro-abortion Left. After the Court heard the arguments the case made the front pages of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Boston Globe.

The Massachusetts buffer zone law requires people with a pro-life message to stay at least 35 feet from the entrance of an abortion clinic, even if that includes a public sidewalk or street. But pro-abortion people affiliated with the abortion clinics can go in as close as they want.

The law is the Massachusetts liberal establishment’s effort to silence the opposition at a critical point in a woman’s decision whetherto abort her child. It allows one type of speech on a public sidewalk, but prohibits opposing speech. Thus it’s considered a major First Amendment case.

Montana and Colorado have both have statewide buffer zone laws, and many cities and towns across the country have passed municipal buffer zone laws similar to the Massachusetts law.

Why the Massachusetts law was passed

More than anything else, pro-lifers in front of abortion clinics such as Operation Rescue in Boston (OR-Boston), run by Bill Cotter since the late 1980s, is the reason the buffer zone law in Massachusetts was passed. Several days a week throughout the year, pro-lifers conduct prayer vigils and informational counseling outside of abortion clinics in Boston, Brookline, Haverhill, Worcester, Springfield, and North Attleborough. They don’t let up.

And they are very effective. Since 2003, OR-Boston has saved 875 babies from death through their counseling efforts. That is a breathtaking achievement. Most pro-family groups do very good work, but how many can say they actually save lives? Hundreds of people are walking this earth who would have faced a violent death in the womb had it not been for these people. And that’s what makes OR-Boston’s efforts so despised by the pro-abortion Left and the mainstream media.

VIDEO: Bill Cotter of Operation Rescue Boston talks about the organization and its ministry. [Life Matters TV
10 min 6 sec]

There’s no question that if there was no pro-life presence at these abortion clinics there would be no buffer zone law in Massachusetts.

Like much of Operation Rescue around the country, OR-Boston is primarily Catholic. The people who undertake this mission tend to be deeply spiritual, tireless and dedicated people. Many, like 77-year-old Eleanor McCullen (lead plaintiff in the suit), have been doing this for decades in every season, in all kinds of weather.

Eleanor McMullen is the lead plaintiff in the case. At 77 years old, she is still out there with OR-Boston saving young lives.

History of the law

Prior to 2000, there were some attempts by the abortion lobby to pass a 25-foot buffer zone bill, but it was blocked by pro-lifers in the Legislature’s leadership.

In 2000 the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the Hill v. Colorado case, upholding a Colorado law establishing an 8-foot “bubble” around abortion customers within 100 feet of the facility, from which pro-life counselors were banned. Shortly after that, the remaining pro-life leadership compromised under pressure from the abortion lobby and Massachusetts passed a law similar to Colorado’s.

But even that was not satisfactory for the abortion lobby. So in 2007 the Legislature, by then dominated by pro-abortion politicians, passed the current law banning any pro-life counselors from entering an area 35 feet from an abortion clinic entrance, demarcated by a bold painted line. Not surprisingly, the liberal federal courts have upheld the law, despite its obvious constitutional issues.

However, the makeup of the Supreme Court has changed considerably since 2000 and it has agreed to revisit this. Many veteran court-watchers think that the current judges will likely reverse the position taken in the 2000 ruling and side with the plaintiffs.

In addition, noted First Amendment experts across the political spectrum have said the Court got it wrong in 2000. As the New York Times described the situation:

The Supreme Court’s 2000 decision has been harshly criticized, including by prominent supporters of abortion rights.

Laurence H. Tribe, the Harvard law professor, said the decision was “right up there” among the candidates for the worst blunders the Supreme Court committed that term.

“I don’t think it was a difficult case,” he said at the time. “I think it was slam-dunk simple and slam-dunk wrong.”

Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer, said the Massachusetts law was no better than the one upheld in 2000.

“The protections of the First Amendment do not evaporate the closer one comes to an abortion clinic,” he wrote in an email. “Access must be protected; so must speech.”

The 2000 decision was decided by a 6-to-3 vote, with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in the majority. They have been replaced by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., and their votes may alter the balance.

In his dissent in 2000 in the Hill case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the majority opinion contradicted “more than a half-century of well-established First Amendment principles” and for the first time approved “a law which bars a private citizen from passing a message, in a peaceful manner and on a profound moral issue, to a fellow citizen on a public sidewalk.”

Operation Rescue Boston activists (left and below) outside of abortion clinics.

Also fighting it in the Massachusetts Legislature

In each of the last few legislative sessions, MassResistance has filed a bill to repeal the buffer zone law. The current bill is H1478. It was heard before the Judiciary Committee on July 9, 2013. It’s still alive, but admittedly repealing it is an uphill fight on Beacon Hill.

So for any effective change, it’s really up to the Supreme Court.

Defending the buffer zone

Reading the broad news coverage of this case and the “PR campaign” surrounding it, one can quickly see why the Massachusetts buffer zone bill has continued to be supported despite its obvious constitutional problems, and why the lower courts have bowed down before it.

The public and political support of the buffer zone law in Massachusetts has been extremely well crafted by Planned Parenthood the abortion lobby. To put it bluntly, this is a textbook case of how the lies of liberals, when repeated constantly, become institutionalized and virtually immune to challenge.

Basically, the constitutional issues are pushed aside and instead the public is constantly reminded about the alleged necessity of stopping violence and vicious harassment directed at abortion facilities and the women coming there for abortions. That is the mantra that is repeated over and over again to the point that it has become accepted as if it were fact.

The 1994 Salvi incident

Virtually the entire “buffer zone” strategy grows out of one incident nearly twenty years ago.

On December 30, 1994, John C. Salvi III, a 22-year-old man who was not affiliated with any Massachusetts pro-life group, entered two Brookline abortion clinics and opened fire, killing a receptionist. He was subsequently diagnosed as a schizophrenic and claimed that “the Mafia and KKK” were out to get him. He stood trial and was convicted of murder in 1996. Later that year he committed suicide in prison.

At the time it was a major media event in Boston, was obsessed over for months from every angle, generated a considerable amount of hysteria against all pro-lifers, and thus became seared into the collective psyche of the region.

(Ironically, say the pro-life advocates, no one gets convicted for the violent murders that routinely take place inside the abortion clinics — of the pre-born children.)

Since then, Salvi’s name has been continuously brought up by pro-abortion activists to psychologically connect him with the (often elderly) Catholic sidewalk counselors, who in fact had nothing to do with him. As Saul Alinsky would point out, never let a crisis go to waste.

A strategy of dishonest scare tactics

That false “guilt by association” has opened the door to the abortion lobby’s unending dishonest but very effective scare tactics. It has leveraged the Salvi violence from two decades ago into a complete mischaracterization of all pro-life activists today.

Any time the buffer zone law is discussed, the abortion lobby talks in emotional terms about intimidation, violence, and screaming that supposedly goes on in front of abortion clinics which women seeking abortions and the staff must endure. It’s certainly enough to make a reasonable person who doesn’t know the truth agree that something must be done.

But it’s all a lie. There is no documented evidence that any violence, assaults, harassment, etc., by pro-lifers has taken place. Nor has the pro-abortion lobby ever presented any actual evidence. There haven’t been any arrests of pro-lifers for assault or similar harassment. As Bill Cotter points out, each abortion facility has numerous video cameras constantly trained on the pro-lifers outside. But they’ve never been able to come up with any video proving their claims against the OR-Boston people.

Moreover, we’ve been told that police records show that the police consider the pro-lifers to be extremely well-behaved — especially compared to Occupy Boston and the like.

Such hostile behavior would actually be counter-productive for pro-lifers. Yes, they sometimes show graphic signs of aborted babies (which is the truth; they are dealing with murder and death, after all). But pro-lifers realize that a certain demeanor is necessary or they will not save any babies.

The big lie: Some recent examples

Nevertheless, the mainstream media continues to repeat the outrageous disinformation from the pro-abortion activists without any challenge whatsoever.

Here are some recent quotes from newspaper articles about the U.S. Supreme Court case:

Boston Globe 6/24/2013:
Rosanna Cavallaro, a law professor at Suffolk University, said the court probably would focus on the “competing interests” between protesters’ right to free speech and clinic patients’ right to be left alone. “Do you have the right to speak with a bullhorn right up to someone’s face?” she asked. “At some point, speech becomes intimidation and harassment.”

Boston Globe 12/29/2013
“Someone should be able to go to a health care clinic, without being yelled at, screamed at, without being harassed,” said [Massachusetts] Attorney General Martha Coakley,

Boston Globe editorial, 1/20/2014
The protests that buffer zones are designed to contain are the loud, intimidating, and physical demonstrations that tend to surround abortion clinics just as often as, say, the Supreme Court.

Boston Globe editorial (quoted above). The mantra gets repeated. “It’s like an echo chamber,” says Bill Cotter.

New York Times, 1-15-2014
Massachusetts has “a long history of crowds around these [abortion clinic] doors or even of violence,” replied [Jennifer] Miller, an assistant [Massachusetts] attorney general.

New York Times, 1/12/2014
The state’s attorney general, Martha Coakley, who is the lead defendant in the suit, said the 35-foot buffer zone created by the 2007 law was a necessary response to an ugly history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities in 1994.

The Guardian (UK) 1/15/2014
Lawyers representing Massachusetts said the buffer zones werenecessary to stop women from being harassed or prevented from entering clinics by crowds of protestors, and insisted it was impractical to draft legislation that differentiated this from “peaceful conversation”.

Boston Globe 12/29/2013
[Planned Parenthood CEO Marty] Walz said the “bubble” zone law was difficult to enforce, and that protesters aggressively approached anyone who entered the zone. She said she visited the Boston clinic in 2007, only to be confronted and intimidated by a large protester. “I had one of the protesters literally standing inches from my face, screaming at me, at full volume,” she said.

Planned Parenthood CEO Marty Walz (quoted above) was previously a Mass. State Representative. In 2007 she sponsored the Buffer Zone bill for Planned Parenthood. In 2012 she left the State House to work full time for Planned Parenthood.She also carried water for the homosexual lobby and other radical Left causes. At left, as a State Rep, Walz applauds during Governor’s signing ceremony for the Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes bill on Jan. 19, 2012.
[MassResistance photo]

There’s plenty of harassment and intimidation — against pro-lifers!

On the other hand, there is plenty of harassment, intimidation, and occasional violence in front of abortion clinics that isn’t ever covered in the media. It’s directed at the pro-lifers — by abortion supporters.

Pro-lifers often get horrible, vulgar things screamed them, things thrown at them from cars, and occasionally even cars careening toward them. There’s plenty of evidence of that. They are also treated badly by pro-abortion cops.

This is an example of the anger directed at pro-life counselors.

But the media is psychologically wrapped up in the myth of pro-life violence.  Bill Cotter relates that a few years ago a Boston Herald columnist wrote about an ugly scene where an angry man at an abortion clinic was arrested and began kicking in the police car doors until he could be restrained. The Herald article portrayed him as a pro-life activist. But the Boston Police Department’s police report said that the man was actually a companion of a Planned Parenthood customer, who had gotten into a heated argument with the Planned Parenthood staff.

Court’s decision months away

It’s expected that the Court’s decision will come sometime in June.

We’ll stay on top of this. We sense a victory is in the works.

US Supreme Court is Undermining Science and Society

The Supreme Court has taken up another case based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s campaign of lies that carbon dioxide is the cause of “climate change” and claims about the quality of air in the United States. The Court is composed of lawyers, not scientists.

At this point in the present era, the Court has made rulings that run contrary to the original, clear intent of the U.S. Constitution and has wrought havoc on our society.

In 1973 it ruled that the killing of unborn babies was protected and millions since then have been deliberately killed. It extended protection to sodomy and same-sex marriage. It is destroying the fabric of our society that has served Americans well for more than two hundred years.

It ruled that the Affordable Health Care Act was a “tax”, enabling the Obamacare to be unleashed with the subsequent loss of health care plans by millions of Americans, often the loss of their personal physician, and the requirement that deeply-held religious opposition to contraception and abortion be negated by a law that requires their beliefs be overruled and denied.

In 2007, I wrote a commentary that was published in The Washington Times. I criticized a Supreme Court ruling that carbon dioxide (CO2) was a “pollutant”, opening the door to the EPA’s rapacious intent to control all aspects of our lives based on this lie that is used to justify its war on coal-fired plants that provide nearly half of all the electrical energy we use daily. “CO2 is not a pollutant,” I wrote, “It exists in the Earth’s atmosphere and every blade of grass and every tree depends on it.” It plays no role whatever in the Earth’s climate.

The Clean Air Act and revisions passed in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1990s. The original regulation of air pollution was a good idea, as were the laws affecting clean water, but the EPA has since used pollution to impose a vast matrix of regulations that do not reflect the fact that the nation’s air and water is now as clean as it ever can be.

Carbon monoxide emissions have fallen from 197 million tons to 89 million tons. Nitrogen oxide emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million tons. Sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 3l million tons to 15 million tons. Lead emissions fell by more than 98%. Particulate emissions (soot) fell by 80%. The air in the U.S. is considerably cleaner, but the EPA’s assertions continue to be made to expand its regulatory power and to attack the sovereignty of the states.

A case that was recently argued before the Court is another EPA effort to rewrite the Clean Air Act, asserting that it be given authority to regulate the flow of alleged “pollution” between “upwind” states and those who receive particulates and gases under its control. Some 27 states are considered “upwind” and those states along with all others have their own air control laws. In states that are more heavily industrialized and which have a large number of coal-fired plants on which the EPA wants to impose expensive standards that have no basis in fact.

A coalition led by Texas of more than a dozen other states brought a case, Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, opposing the EPA’s regulatory re-write of the Clean Air Act. In August 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the EPA which appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Wall Street Journal noted that “The D.C. Circuit only rarely overturns EPA rules, which shows how out of bounds the cross-state regulation is. The Supreme Court should overturn it for violating the federalist intentions of Congress, but there is also the added judicial incentive to show this increasingly rogue agency that it can’t rewrite the law as it pleases.”

The U.S. has been harmed by the many laws whose justification is based on the totally unscientific hoax regarding CO2. During the 101st and 111th Congresses, there were 692 laws introduced containing the term “greenhouse gas” when, in fact, CO2 is NOT such a gas, playing no role whatever in trapping warmth to affect the weather and/or climate of the Earth.

Stringent domestic laws and regulations, moreover, do not take into consideration the role of many other nations whose emissions are far greater than those produced here. However, reducing their emissions will have no effect on the Earth’s climate. The Earth is in what will likely be a lengthy cycle of cooling based on reduced solar radiation. It recently snowed in Egypt and in Israel where snow has long been a rarity.

The Obama administration’s “war on coal” has used the EPA to inflict an attack on the nation’s capacity to provide energy and the EPA has not ceased from using every ruling it has imposed to degrade the nation’s ability to maintain and expand the industrial base it needs to provide for economic growth, an increase in jobs, and the sovereign right of states to determine their own response to the need for clean air. The U.S. is a republic composed of separate republics.

At this point, control of the nation’s air and water quality should be returned in full to the states and the EPA should be eliminated as the threat to the nation it has become. The Supreme Court has played a role in this threat, ruling without any attention to real science, traditional values, and the clear intent of the Constitution.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

Florida Churches changing bylaws after gay marriage ruling

Prophecy News Watch reports:

Worried they could be sued by gay couples, some churches are changing their bylaws to reflect their view that the Bible allows only marriage between one man and one woman.

Although there have been lawsuits against wedding industry businesses that refuse to serve gay couples, attorneys promoting the bylaw changes say they don’t know of any lawsuits against churches.

Critics say the changes are unnecessary, but some churches fear that it’s only a matter of time before one of them is sued.

“I thought marriage was always between one man and one woman, but the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision said no,” said Gregory S. Erwin, an attorney for the Louisiana Baptist Convention, an association of Southern Baptist churches and one several groups advising churches to change their bylaws. “I think it’s better to be prepared because the law is changing. America is changing.”

In a June decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as between a man and a woman for purposes of federal law. A second decision was more technical but essentially ushered in legal gay marriage in California.

Kevin Snider is an attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute, a nonprofit legal defense group that specializes in conservative Christian issues. His organization released a model marriage policy a few years ago in response to a statewide gay marriage fight in California. Snider said some religious leaders have been threatened with lawsuits for declining to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Dean Inserra, head pastor of the 1,000-member City Church Tallahassee, based in Florida, said he does not want to be alarmist, but his church is looking into how best to address the issue.

Inserra said he already has had to say no to gay friends who wanted him to perform a wedding ceremony.

“We have some gay couples that attend our church. What happens when they ask us to do their wedding?” Inserra said. “What happens when we say no? Is it going to be treated like a civil rights thing?”

Critics, including some gay Christian leaders, argue that the changes amount to a solution looking for a problem.

“They seem to be under the impression that there is this huge movement with the goal of forcing them to perform ceremonies that violate their freedom of religion,” said Justin Lee, executive director of the Gay Christian Network, a nonprofit that provides support for gay Christians and their friends and families and encourages churches to be more welcoming.

“If anyone tried to force a church to perform a ceremony against their will, I would be the first person to stand up in that church’s defense.”

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia now recognize gay marriage.

Some Christian denominations, such as the United Church of Christ, accept gay marriage. The Episcopal Church recently approved a blessing for same-sex couples, but each bishop must decide whether to allow the ceremony in his or her local diocese.

Read more.

Catholic Bishops file amicus brief in support of Defense of Marriage Act

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on January 29, 2013 filed amicus briefs in the United States Supreme Court in support of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8, both of which confirm the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

DOMA was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996 and defines marriage for federal and inter-state recognition purposes. Proposition 8 is a state constitutional amendment approved by the citizens of California in 2008. Both laws are challenged because they define marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman.

Urging the Court to uphold DOMA the USCCB brief in United States v. Windsor says that “there is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex.” The brief also states that “as defined by courts ‘sexual orientation’ is not a classification that should trigger heightened scrutiny,” such as race or ethnicity would.

It added that “civil recognition of same-sex relationships is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition—quite the opposite is true. Nor can the treatment of such relationships as marriages be said to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.”

USCCB argued that previous Supreme Court decisions “describing marriage as a fundamental right plainly contemplate the union of one man and one woman.”

The USCCB also cautioned that a decision invalidating DOMA “would have adverse consequences in other areas of law.”

In a separate brief filed in Hollingsworth v Perry urging the Court to uphold Proposition 8, the USCCB states that there are many reasons why the state may reasonably support and encourage marriage, understood as the union of one man and one woman, as distinguished from other relationships. Government support for marriage, so understood, is “recognizing the unique capacity of opposite-sex couples to procreate” and “the unique value to children of being raised by their mother and father together.”

The USCCB brief states that “[T]he People of California could reasonably conclude that a home with a mother and a father is the optimal environment for raising children, an ideal that Proposition 8 encourages and promotes. Given both the unique capacity for reproduction and unique value of homes with a mother and father, it is reasonable for a State to treat the union of one man and one woman as having a public value that is absent from other intimate interpersonal relationships.”

The USCCB brief adds that “While this Court has held that laws forbidding private, consensual, homosexual conduct between adults lack a rational basis, it does not follow that the government has a constitutional duty to encourage or endorse such conduct. Thus, governments may legitimately decide to further the interests of opposite-sex unions only. Similarly, minimum standards of rationality under the Constitution do not require adopting the lower court’s incoherent definition of ‘marriage’ as merely a ‘committed lifelong relationship,’ which is wildly over-inclusive, empties the term of its meaning, and leads to absurd results.”

“Marriage, understood as the union of one man and one woman, is not an historical relic, but a vital and foundational institution of civil society today,” the USCCB brief states. “The government interests in continuing to encourage and support it are not merely legitimate, but compelling. No other institution joins together persons with the natural ability to have children, to assure that those children are properly cared for. No other institution ensures that children will at least have the opportunity of being raised by their mother and father together. Societal ills that flow from the dissolution of marriage and family would not be addressed—indeed, they would only be aggravated—were the government to fail to reinforce the union of one man and one woman with the unique encouragement and support it deserves.”

The USCCB brief also notes that “Proposition 8 is not rendered invalid because some of its supporters were informed by religious or moral considerations. Many, if not most, of the significant social and political movements in our Nation’s history were based on precisely such considerations.Moreover, the argument to redefine marriage to include the union of persons of the same sex is similarly based on a combination of religious and moral considerations (albeit ones that are, in our view, flawed).As is well established in this Court’s precedent, the coincidence of law and morality, or law and religious teaching, does not detract from the rationality of a law.”

USCCB notes that a judicial decision invalidating Proposition 8’s definition of marriage would have adverse consequences in other areas of law.

“[R]edefining marriage—particularly as a matter of constitutional law, rather than legislative process—not only threatens principles of federalism and separation of powers, but would have a widespread adverse impact on other constitutional rights, such as the freedoms of religion, conscience, speech, and association.Affirmance of the judgment below would create an engine of conflict in this area, embroiling this Court and lower courts in a series of otherwise avoidable disputes—pitting constitutional right squarely against constitutional right—for years to come.