comes to "gay marriage," conservatives shouldn't hold their breath
waiting for nine lawyers in black robes to get it right.
So here we go. The United States Supreme Court has decided
to hear two cases involving the claims of same-sex couples that
they are being denied their constitutional rights when a state
refuses to condone their union as official state-sanctioned
Even before the arguments are made, you can guess all of the
justices already know how they feel about the issue. And with
as much as they will bury those feelings in legal jargon, their
decision is one that will strike at the heart of Natural Law.
Their ruling will be a formal declaration as to whether as a people
we will abide by or violate God's moral order.
So what to expect? One of three things.
First is the possibility that the Court will drop a cultural
bomb on the United States as it did in its 1973 disastrous ruling
in Roe v. Wade. That decision overturned laws in
50/50 states, was a massive federal power grab, and about as
horrific a violation of Natural Law that you can possibly
imagine. The Court declared that they had found in the
Constitution a previous undiscovered right to kill your
offspring. And therefore, any state that attempted to ban the
practice was violating the U.S. Constitution. It was (and
remains) patently absurd.
Certainly as it stands, the four ideological zealots of the left
who sit on the Court (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) are
more than ready to do the same thing with gay marriage. Isn't
it funny how no one in the media ever talks about the blind
partisanship and ideological obsession of the liberal
justices? Those pejorative phrases are only applied to
conservatives who act conservative. Nevertheless, the only
thing that stands between our culture and the utter destruction of
family, then, is one vote of the so-called "conservative"
We've already seen how reliable Chief Justice John Roberts is
with his ObamaCare sellout, and anyone who has followed the
judicial career of Anthony Kennedy (particularly on abortion) knows
that he is about as trustworthy a conservative as Charlie
Crist. The other three will probably get it right - and if I
was guessing, Roberts would too. So it all comes down to
Anthony Kennedy, just as it did on the potential overturn of
Roe back in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v.
Casey. If you wonder how that turned out, check the
trash bins out behind your local abortion mill.
The second possibility is that Kennedy and Roberts will get this
one right, and join the other conservative justices to uphold
Natural Law. They could issue a far-reaching decision that
declares conclusively that there is no constitutional right of
same-sex marriage. If they follow their own precedent in
Baker v. Nelson, that's what they will do. But I
wouldn't bet the ranch. While some conservatives are apt to
believe that the Court is hearing this case now because the
conservative justices want to rule on this issue before Obama gets
to replace any of them with more radical liberals, I just don't
think it's likely that Kennedy will allow himself to be seen as a
social conservative crusader in one of his last major rulings, or
that the guy who was so afraid of stirring controversy in the
ObamaCare case (John Roberts) that he willingly threw the
Constitution under the bus will be likely to make this a landmark
victory for common sense.
Which brings us to the third option, and the one that I suppose
seems most plausible to me. Given the narrow questions that
the Court agreed to consider in these two "gay marriage" cases, it
is completely possible for them to issue rulings about those
specific issues (questions of petitioner's standing and other
jurisdiction objections) while leaving the big question of a
constitutional right to gay marriage alone. The Court did
this in the Pledge of Allegiance case a few years back.
Rather than ruling that "under God" was constitutional to be
recited in schools, they merely said that the atheist bringing the
case lacked standing to do so, and therefore vacated the previous
court's ruling. They kicked the can down the road.
And that's what I would expect. Of course, given the
direction our culture has chosen to go by selecting a president who
deems God's definition of marriage bigoted, it's only a matter of
time before a more liberal Court picks that can up and attempts to
deliver a death blow to marriage and family in the United
Conservatives who are committed to stopping this from happening
shouldn't hold their breath waiting for nine lawyers in black robes
to get it right. After all, if they can get the question of
whether it's okay to kill babies in the womb wrong, they can't be
trusted to get the day of the week right ... no less a case this
important. Instead, we should be committing ourselves to a
new and bold strategy of taking back our culture - our media, our
schoolrooms, our communities. Rather than seeking to change
politicians in order to fix our culture, we must change our culture
to fix our politicians.
Peter Heck (email@example.com) is a public high school
government teacher and radio talk show host in central
This column is printed with permission. Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.