Judges must not force Churches to conform

I'm tired of hearing people talk about how Christians are forcing their religion on other people. This has never happened.  Christians were just going about their daily lives, minding their own businesses, while other institutions, the government included, decided to get involved in the institution.  They got involved, they found a way to create benefitTs for it, to tax it, and to claim it as their own.

Now Christians get blamed for forcing their definition of marriage on everyone else.  No such thing ever happened.  And if the establishment clause is respected, Christian churches should be able to continue performing marriages between a man and a woman as they always have.  In no way shape or form should the Supreme Court Ruling that gay marriage should be legal be forced on the Church.  If it does, all hell will break loose.  Their will, or should, be a public outcry.

The ruling by the Supreme Court only applies to marriages performed by Judges or Justices of the Piece.  They only apply to government marriages.  If anything else happens, if Judges force priests and pastors to marry gay couples, then the opposite will be happening: the minority will be forcing its will on Christianity.

Now, if it is not okay for Christianity to force its views on the rest of society (something that has never happened by the way), then it surely should not be okay for society to force Churches to conform to the current whims of society.

In other words, if the Christian ant-gay marriage stance is bigoted, then so too is the secular stance that Churches must accept gay marriage.

The Constitution is something special

The U.S. Constitution, and the way it came about, is something of a miracle.  That's how I think of it.  That's how most people think of it  But that's not the way it's taught anymore.  Today it's taught as something that is just there in the way of us passing our selfish agenda, and if we need to we can change it and remake it.  Of course when you do that you water it down so it has no real meaning.

Look at the gay marriage argument.  In order for the judges to rule on gay marriage they had to find some way that it was contained in the Constitution, which it is not.  But they found a way, pulled it out of thin air, and somehow found a way that the 14th amendment says that gays have a constitutional right to marry.

So in order for this to happen, they had to water down the constitution.  They had to water down religious freedom and water down the freedom of speech.  This is the kind of thing people look at when they say they don't want to change tradition.  It's not that people are opposed to gay people.  It's not that they don't want gay people to share their lives.  It's that they don't want the greatest miracle ever written to become watered down so it has no meaning.

You know, words mean things.  But if you are going to adjust here, and tinker there, to make the Constitution say whatever you want it to say so you can get what YOU want, then it means nothing.  It's nothing but a piece of paper with words that mean nothing.

Believe it or not, there are people in this country who care about things larger than themselves.  When I wrote my list of priorities, I put God, Country, then wife and then my kids.  I don't even rate myself, nor what I want, in the top ten.  Somewhere in there I put my job, and my friends, and my parents, but no where do I even rank myself.  It's not that I don't care about myself, it's not that I don't have desires and wants, but I know that there are things larger than myself.

I know that if I change the Constitution to get what I want, then the next generation can change the constitution to get whatever they want -- and it may be far worse than gay marriage.  This is what I mean when I say that the Constitution is etched in stone, that it is effective for all time not to be changed. When it's etched in stone, when interpreted as written, it means something.  Now that you just change it to get your selfish desires, it means less.

The Constitution is one of those things that is larger than we are.  It should be around for many more years to come, but it might not be if we keep watering it down.  I don't look at the political system as a way I can get more stuff for myself.  Yet the left has used it to get gay marriage for itself.  It has abused the system. Justice Kennedy has abused the system.  They used the political system as a game, rather than something that means something.

Neither abortion nor marriage are mentioned in the Constitution.  And yet here you have the Supreme Court ruling on both of them as though they were  The 10th amendment states that what is not mentioned in the Constitution is left to the states to decide.

That's what was happening, and 36 states had changed the law so two men could marry.  But now the Supreme Court comes in and makes gay marriage legal in the other states without in any way considering the 10th amendment.  That's wrong.  It's happening because people are no longer taught that the constitution is special.

States lose their sovereignty in the process.  Many of the founders would not have signed the Constitution unless the states were able to hold onto their rights. They certainly wouldn't have signed onto it had they known judges would some day be able to make laws.

So my liberal friends say there will be no slippery slope whereby polygamy will be legalized, or priests will be told they have to marry gays. The point is it's going to happen precisely because the Supreme Court's decision on homosexual cannot say it can't.

A big win for gay marriage advocates

By Mike Thompson, Detroit Free Press

There is good news for advocates for gay marriage that came out of a Supreme Court ruling on October 6, 2014, or lack of ruling for that matter.  In essence, according to Politico, the Supreme Court decided to punt on all seven of the seven pending petitions requesting the Court to rule on same sex marriage.

By deciding not to hear these cases, the Supreme Court has, and duly so, decided to honor the tenth amendment which states that any issues not covered in the U.S. Constitution are left to the states, to the people, to decide.  In this way, the Supreme Court is in essence saying that the Federal Government has no Constitutional claim to rule gay marriage.

What this ruling means is that states can rule on gay marriage however they want, and it's no longer going to require a state by state vote.  When state officials want to make gay marriage legal, all they have to do now is have a majority, pass a law, and have their governor sign it.  No longer will it require a majority of voters voting yes for it to pass.

To me, as a Constitutional loving American, this only makes sense.  If the Supreme Court had ruled in this way (or, again, not ruled), if the Court had announced in 1972 that it would not rule on Rowe-v-Wade, state rulings on the issue would have stood.  Abortion would have been legal in some states and illegal in others.

Surely I am against any abortion, and consider it to be murder of innocent children.  However, the issue is not covered in the Constitution, and therefore it only makes sense that it be left to the states to decide.  The same is true of gay or same sex marriage.  Lacking an amendment, the issue should be left to the states to decide.

Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post is rightfully giddy about this "non ruling," as she said: "Supreme Court confirms what should be already known: The fight over gay marriage is over."

I wouldn't say that it is over, but this surely is good news for both gay marriage advocates and liberty.

According to Politico, the Justices turned down petitions challenging appellate decisions that overturned same-sex marriage bans in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The ruling clears the way for same sex marriage in five states, and could clear the way in six other states based on appeals court rulings already handed down.  While the practice is currently legal in 19 states, this could soon become 30, according to Politico.

I have said on this blog before that I agree with Ron Pal when he said, in effect, that "No majority should be able to vote away the rights of the minority."

While many states had referendums where the majority in those states opposed gay marriage, those referendums may now be challenged by lawmakers.  This is a perfect example of how the U.S. Constitution protects the minority from the majority.

You'll rarely ever hear me agreeing with Justice Ruth Ginsburg, although I can't deny that I do agree with her in this case as she said, "All three federal appeals courts to take it up have agreed that it is unconstitutional for states to prohibit same-sex marriage."

What she was essentially saying was that because there was no lower court ruling disagreeing with those three, they punted the issue back to the lower courts.  This means that the lower court rulings stand.  This means that gay marriage is now the law of the land; that rulings against gay marriage are unconstitutional.

See my post Seven Myths About Gay Marriage.

Don Jones sent to sensitivity training; Michael Sam doing reality show

Don Jones of the Miami Dolphins

I just want my readers to know that I have no problem with an openly gay person, Michael Sam in this case, being drafted by the NFL.  I have written on this blog how I have utmost respect for the gay population, even to the point that I support gay marriage.

I could write about how good this is for the nation and stuff like that, but I think that topic has been covered ad nauseum on other blogs and in the media.  For the sake of this blog, I would like to take this discussion a step further.

I think that our Constitution is not prejudiced, and it essentially protects the rights and liberties of all Americans equally.  By this, it does not matter the color of your skin, the religion of your choice, whether you are male or female, or whether you are straight or gay.  You are an American, you have natural born rights and liberties that the Constitution protects.

Michael Sam of the Miami Dolphins

Taken a step further, you also have a right to be smart, but you also have a right to be stupid.  You have a right to be sensitive, but you also have a right to be insensitive.

That said, while I completely disagree with him, I think that Miami Dolphin Don Jones is an insensitive idiot for tweeting "OMG," and "horrible" in response to the drafting of Sam.

So, just because Don Jones disagrees with the management of the Miami Dolphins, and disagrees with sensitive and caring Americans who are proud of Michael Sam for doing what he did, the Dolphins are forcing Jones to attend "sensitivity training."

You may disagree with me here, but I think this is scary.  So just because Jones disagrees with you he has to attend "sensitivity training" until he either does or says he does.  That is not American.  In fact, it's as un-American as you can get.

I think we should be proud of Michael Sam.  However, I think what the Dolphins are forcing Jones to do, attend re-educational camp, distracts from all that is good about Sam being drafted.  I think it's crazy; it's scary.

If I openly disagree with Obamacare, am I going to have to attend "re-education" training" until I support it. I openly criticize world leaders on this blog.  Am I going to be forced to attend "re-education training" when my opinion differs from theirs.

Folks, this is not good. Sam being drafted is good, but the Dolphin's punishment for Jones being an idiot is not good.

Should Jones' apologize? Yes!  Should Jones be told to keep his mouth shut? Yes! Should he be fined?  Yes! Should Jones be fired? Perhaps.  Should Jones be forced to think like you and me?  No!  And that's what I find scary.
-------------------
Update:  5/17/14

In another interesting twist, the Dolphins learn that Michael Sam was doing a reality TV show during the draft, and they weren't aware of this.  So, this sort of distracts from his coming out, and the kiss.

Think about it this way, when you are in front of cameras, and when the cameras are rolling, do you act the same way you would act when the cameras are not on you?  The answer is usually no.

So, this raises the possibility that Sam came out only as part of the show, and the possibility that "the kiss" was only an act in front of the cameras.  ESPN analyst Jason Whitlock said he would cut Sam based on this deception.

According to CBS News:

Whitlock said that he feels like Michael Sam is contradicting himself. Sam said that he wants to be viewed as a football player, but now he’s doing a docuseries that’s going to take away from football. He also said he’s a staunch supporter of Sam coming out but right now he feels duped.

It's interesting anyway. Were all the media, all those who all they could talk about for several weeks before the draft was Michael Sam being the first ever gay player who came out to be drafted in the "manly" NFL draft, duped?

I'm not forming an opinion here, nor telling you how you should react to this, I'm merely analyzing what's in the news.  Yet some say the show should be cancelled because it will just distract from football (something Sam said he did not want to do), or Sam should be cut.

Further reading or viewing:

1. Dolphins fine and suspend Don Jones for anti-Michael Sam tweet
2. O, No!  Show revealed
3. Michael Sam faces real danger: the Tim Tebow effect