US Supreme Court and the definition of marriage

CONSIDERING THE ROLE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN DEFINING MARRIAGE

by Nancy Dobson, PO Box 71132, Bethesda, Maryland 20813

In their June 2013 decision against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) five U.S. Supreme Court justices thought they were clever by writing a convoluted decision. But the Court did take sides – against God, nature and the majority of those citizens whose states allow a fair vote count and who have voted on this issue. If DOMA was motivated by a “bare desire to harm…and impose inequality,” so are all laws, because all laws discriminate against law breakers, by definition. The justices strained out gnats while swallowing camels whole (Matthew 23:23-24). Cowed by a president who thinks he owes his re-election to the financial support of homosexuals, and by media that is in open rebellion against the entrenched Judeo-Christian culture of America, the justices caved in rather than uphold a simple and logical law passed by Congress. They had an opportunity and a responsibility to lead the country away from the extreme prejudice against one gender or the other that drives homosexuals. Instead, they misled the children of the nation to believe that those in the highest court in the land are unable to distinguish between moral and immoral behavior. Jesus said any who mislead or cause the downfall of a child who believes in him would be better off thrown into the sea with a millstone around his neck (Matthew 18:5-10). Their error in judgment is likely to follow these unjust judges through several incarnations. What a tragedy for them.

Also in the Bible God, warns that those who know God’s Law and break it anyway show contempt for God and should be removed from the community (Numbers 15:30-31; Leviticus 22:31-33). The five errant justices — three Jews and two Christians – who have no excuse for not knowing God’s Law, while making a deliberate attempt to sabotage a culture built on Bible principles, have in the process drawn this additional punishment onto themselves. They may enjoy the balance of this life, but they should fear God and the judgment sure to come.

While the Torah Law says to respect the highest court’s decisions it also says the court must consist of priests. Priests would not show disrespect for God’s Law but would lead the nation in the way of righteousness (Deuteronomy 21:5, 16:19-20, 17:8-13; Leviticus 19:15; Exodus 23:1-3, 7-8). God’s Law, of course, takes precedence over the rules of unjust judges.

What they call homophobia is not a fear of homosexuality as much as it is respect for God’s Law, God’s presence and nature’s patterns. Nature’s force is limited by laws to create a balance that ultimately protects life. Humans have free will and can breach the laws of nature, but this creates imbalance that ultimately threatens life. Without scorn but in all honesty it is right to acknowledge what is unnatural and counter to the laws God created — for nature and for humans — and encourage those in all activities who show contempt for these laws to adjust and choose God’s patterns.

When someone tries to force contempt for God’s Law on others – whether it is for adultery, homosexuality, murder or something else – they are in error. If they try to force others to legitimize their error then those others have a responsibility to choose God over the errant party. Jesus tells us to shun the unrepentant. (Matthew 18:15-17) God promises to treat those who do not discriminate against Law breakers as He will treat the Law breakers. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19; Numbers 33:50-56) Even in civil law someone who knows about a crime and doesn’t report it may be considered an accomplice and treated as a lawbreaker himself.

The justices for the U.S. Supreme Court are appointed by the President, who chooses them from those promoted by his biggest campaign financers. They therefore reflect the views of that narrow group, not the views of the vast majority of the population. In order for the justices to be elected by citizens would merely require a constitutional amendment ratified by the states. Citizens could set a term limit, with the possibility of re-election. We could also make it possible to impeach a justice who rules against morality and nature.

In order to elect political representatives who represent the will of the majority in a democracy we need an honest vote count. Computers have proved unreliable in securing a verifiable vote count. Voters could hold fund raisers and use the money to print ballots, then obtain voter registration lists from their counties, mail and hand deliver the ballots and ask voters in each precinct to send the write-in ballots to a place where they are verified against the registration lists and counted by voter volunteers. Voluntary donations also could be invited. This would check the computer vote count in elections and take back democracy for America.

Here is one way to work with the ballots. Use 81/2 by 61/2 inch sheets, a separate sheet for each office and issue plus a cover sheet. All pages would have the voter’s name and voter registration number on them and the voter would sign and date each page after marking their vote. Either use a different color box frame for each page or a different size and placement of box on the page so that once separated and stacked the pages can be fanned to catch any that are in the wrong stack. After the ballots are mailed or delivered to each precinct, the intake person would remove the cover sheet and check off the name on the voter registration list. The next person would separate the pages and give volunteer counters at separate tables the sheet for the office or issue they are counting. The counters would put the pages in stacks according to who and what was voted for. The votes could be stapled in the top center in groups of 100 to make them easier to count throughout the day, and a total signed off on by two checkers at the end of each day they are counted, before they are locked up. Campaign committee members could easily check the stacks by fanning them to verify that all votes in each stack are for the candidate or issue voted for in that stack.

In the final analysis each person is accountable for their own sins. (Deuteronomy 24:16). And not all people follow the Pied Piper of Modernity, though some say law keepers are in the minority.   It is a narrow gate and a hard road that leads to (eternal) life (in God’s kingdom) and only those who do God’s will find it (Matthew 7:13-14, 21-23). So even if it were true that only a minority are willing to show love and obedience to God, one should not be discouraged. It is because they have been misled by their teachers and leaders that some have not developed the wisdom and resolve to hold themselves accountable, follow Jesus’ example and teachings and choose God’s will over the dramatized popular will (Matthew 16:24-26; John 15:4-8). But today anyone can read the Bible and learn the lessons in the text. Whether your teacher is true or false the responsibility, and the judgment, are ultimately your own.

Advertisements

One thought on “US Supreme Court and the definition of marriage

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s