Tag Archives: homosexual marriage

Those Who Are For Homosexual Marriage, Are Enemies Of Christ And Enemies Of Civilization

By Theodore Shoebat for SHOEBAT.COM

The one who redefines reality, redefines life, and will only bring death upon us.

The sons of Satan and the slaves of the spirits of the abyss, are now redefining reality when they say that man can be a woman, or a woman a man, or that two men are no different than a husband and a wife, of whom Chrysostom wrote, that “there is nothing which so welds our life together as the love of man and wife.” (Homily 20, on Ephesians 5:22-24)

By trying to redefine reality these sodomites are constructing the tyranny of confusion. The tyranny of confusion is despotism brought about, not by guns or arms, but by deception—not any sort of deception—but by a distinct sophism that redefines a reality that only seems to be existent in a person’s intellectual and spiritual disposition, which is formed by indoctrination through academia, propaganda and popular media. You will wonder, ‘Why is this tyranny? People can believe what they want to believe.’

It is tyranny because it enables tyranny. The tyranny of confusion does not write up a despotic constitution on paper, before it writes it on the hearts of the people. A man says that he is a woman, and the tyranny of confusion brainwashes people into thinking that he is to be believed; more than that, it convinces entire societies to believe him, and to get angry when a few voices say that he is wrong.

The Nazis created their own reality (many of them were homosexuals), and they wanted to force the whole world to be a part of it

Once governments and institutions are allowed—without ever being stopped or hindered—from redefining a reality as pertinent as gender, as foundational as marriage, and as obvious as the life of an unborn child, then they will only continue to redefine more of reality, until they conquer all of reality, and confine her in the prison of confusion’s regime.

The conservatives avidly use (as do I) the slippery slope argument (homosexual “marriage” will lead to polygamy, polyandry, pederasty, whats next?). But I believe we should add a new argument to our arsenal: the tyranny of confusion, and the continual hijacking of reality for the purpose of seizing power.

The knowledge of reality is power, and whoever has the highest platform on which to define that reality, has the power to redefine it, and such brings about the worst form of power, the power that corrupts and seizes souls, the power that oppresses virtue, and sees the world as not a designed plan—with purpose and justice—but as only a construct to be demolished and reconstructed at the whims of vile capriciousness.

Just look at this wretch gluttonously eating while talking about selling the body parts of children:


She does not show one ounce of guilt, and her conscious is so scorched that she does not restrain herself while nonchalantly speaking of murdering babies for profit. How do you explain this? Her sense of reality is completely clouded, she is drunk in her own deception; she loves darkness, and never wants to leave it. A baby is not a life, but a means to an end. This is not reality—of course—but she has redefined reality, and wants even the little babies to conform to her fantasy.

The ones who redefine marriage and gender, will also redefine what is life, and will determine who has the right to be alive. If they can say that a man is actually a woman—and vice-versa—then they will continue on, to only look at a Christian—or someone who doesn’t want anything to do with their attack against virtue—and say, ‘You are not a human being to us, you are not amongst the superior minds such as us.’

The Nazis used eugenics and social Darwinism as a means to determine who was worthy of life and death in their own fantastical utopia.

And worse than an animal, will they treat us, taking us to camps where people are butchered, or where some people are “reeducated” to be assimilated into the tyranny of confusion.

This is how the tyranny of confusion works: it influences entire societies into collectively agreeing with a redefinition of reality, and once someone agrees with absolute reality, their rights are redefined out of existence.

The whole society conformed to the tyranny of confusion, except for one man, August Landmesser, who was eventually arrested

Historically speaking, one of the clearest examples of the tyranny of confusion is the Buddhist ideology of Imperial Japan. The Japanese ideologues, learning from Buddhist texts, believed that murder is only a sin if the murderer does perceive the victim as a human being. The Buddhist text, the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa, states:

The sin of murder exists only insofar as one has the notion of a living being, even though such a thing does not exist.

The Japanese were influenced by such beliefs, believing in precepts that were in accordance to the Buddhist text, Treatise of Absolute Contemplation, which teaches that whether killing a human is murder depends not on absolute morality founded on truth, but on the perception of the murderer:

If every living being is just a phantasm or a dream, is it a sin to kill them? –If one “sees” them as living beings, it is a sin to kill them. If one does not “see” them as living beings, then there are not any living beings that can be killed; as when one kills another man in a dream: upon awakening, there is absolutely no one there.

D.T. Suzuki adopted this view, writing that one creates his own morality “outside of good and evil” which permits him to indulge in whatever evils he so wishes, without the worry of being guilty or breaking an absolute moral precept.

One can kill, and feel no remorse just as long as he “sees” his victim as not being human. This worldview resinated within the depraved souls of the Japanese soldiers. It is why Japanese veteran Toshio Mizobuchi, after being asked by a rabbi if he felt any guilt about committing human experiments on Chinese people, angrily answered:

No… The logs [a reference to Chinese victims] were not considered to be human. (Peter Li, Japanese War Crimes, ch. 17, p. 297, ellipses mine)

Chinese people decapitated by the Japanese. The manifestation of living in a fantasy

By believing that the Chinese were not human beings, they inevitably omitted from their consciouses the reality that they were indeed human, and thus they redefined reality. From this came the redefinition of the Chinese people’s dignity and natural rights as human beings, and thus the tyranny of confusion manifested itself in the Japanese when they slaughtered millions of people in China.


Japanese soldier about to behead Chinese man


It is this very despotic perception that is in the minds of the acolytes of the tyranny of confusion that we see today, as they try to revive the kingdom of Sodom. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah the Scriptures give us an illustration as to how the tyranny of confusion looks like. As soon as all of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah approached Lot they said: “Where are the men who came to you tonight?” (Genesis 19:5) Immediately you see the distortion of reality; they wanted men, even though it is against the natural order, they redefined the harmony of nature and internally validated their own perception of reality.

Lot, being “oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked” (2 Peter 2:7), and not accommodating to their fantasy, defended the natural order and said: “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly!” (Genesis 19:7). Now observe what the Sodomites told Lot:

This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them. (Genesis 19:9)

They saw Lot as judging their reality, and in turn perceived him as worthy of severe punishment. Think upon this the next time someone tells you, “Don’t judge!” The madness that we keep hearing of “don’t judge!” is just anger expressed at people who judge their reality. One cannot have this type of tyranny without a mass distortion of reality permeating the population. St. Peter describes the wicked as “carousing in their own deceptions” (2 Peter 2:13). The Apostle is describing them as drunk in their own fabricated reality,. They are living in their own redefinition of reality, with the hopes of imprisoning the whole of humanity into their fantasy, with those who object to be eliminated. Hence “they themselves are slaves of corruption” (2 Peter 2:19).

Lot and his family fleeing from Sodom and Gomorrah during its construction

The Apostle tells us, “do not become slaves of men.” (1 Corinthians 7:23) Do not become slaves within their own deceptions and fantasies in which they are drunk from the fetters of indulgence and license; do not become slaves to the pimps of darkness who use “swelling words of emptiness” and who “allure through the lusts of the flesh” (2 Peter 2:18), and while “they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption” (2 Peter 2:19)

The universe and all of the cosmos were plunged into darkness, and God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. (Genesis 1:3) God spoke light into existence, through His Word, “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) The Word of God is the Son, and in the most beautiful words of St. John, “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” (John1:3-5)

The darkness never understands the light, because it continuously lives away from truth, for it always flees from Christ. It always retreats from the Truth, and slavishly lives as a redefinition of the truth. All of the works of the devil are merely redefinitions of the truth: Islam says that Christ is not God; evolution says that we evolved from apes; atheism says that there is no God. All are attempts to bring people to live a non-truth, and to stay away from the way, the truth, and the life. (John 14:6)

Christ does not become, He simply is. He is the I AM (John 8:58); He is, in the words of Solovyov, “the absolute center of all beings” and “the great unity of mankind” (Solovyov, The Russian Idea, ch. 4, p. 17); He is “the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8) He is God. In the words of St. John of Damascus:

He is the being of things that are, the life of the living, the reason of the rational, and the intelligence of intelligent being. He surpasses intelligence, reason, life, and essence. (John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, 1.14)

God is reality. God is the truth. Read the words of the Apostle and contemplate on this sublime truth:

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. (Colossians 1:16-17)

20101213 Jesus_in_Gethsemane

Thus, any declaration of war against Christ, is a war against reality itself. And any declaration of war against truth, is a declaration of war against Christ, for He is the truth. In all, it is a war against civilization. Christ is the One Who gives “light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.” (Luke 1:79) Those who go contrary to the Light of Truth do not bring peace, but violence and tyranny. Thus the Lord declares:

I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war. (Psalm 120:7)

The Christ brings peace, for He is the Truth, and the truth sets us free. But those who want to change the truth and redefine reality do “not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy.” (John 10:10)

When Christ destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, it was not just a mere obliteration of cities, but the triumph of Truth and Justice over the tyranny of confusion.

Sodom was a city under the rule of the tyranny of confusion, and Christ — Justice and Truth Incarnate — destroyed it, or in the beautiful words of the Spanish poet Prudentius:

The Lord the Son was hurling the wrath of the Lord the Father, armed with fire. The two thunderbolts are one. (Prudentius, The Divinity of Christ, 317-320)

This is why it our obligation, as sons of Truth, to fight against the tyranny of confusion, and if we do not, it will only redefine us as undeserving of liberty and life.

Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell is revolting against the tyranny of confusion that the Supreme Court is enforcing, and refuses to marry any homosexuals. The judge righteously said:

I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment… The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best.

Judge Allen McConnell

Now, there are certain arguments and observations I would like to make in regards to homosexuality and the state. For one, homosexuality is useless to the state and to the country. It is a vile fecal fetish, that brings in no children, no new life, and thus, no new citizens for the growth, virtue, and well-being of the nation. Without the conjugal union between man and woman, you have no civilization. Without homosexuality, civilization continues, without the conjugal union, civilization dies. This is why homosexuality is deserving of no protection or statues, it only deserves only “to be caught and destroyed” (2 Peter 2:12)

As St. Augustine beautifully wrote, in a poetic writing addressed to the Church:

Thou subjectest women to their husbands in chaste and faithful obedience, not to gratify passion, but for the propagation of offspring, and for domestic society. (Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, ch. 30, trans. Stothert)

Notice here what Augustine says: the Church, with all of her wisdom and received inspiration, superintended the institution of marriage, not as some club where anyone can “love” each other, but for the propagation of mankind and thus for the wellbeing of society.

Marriage between one man and one woman (as I learned from Michael Brown) guarantees the responsible propagation of children. You may ask, “why two?” The Scriptures testify that “God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’ (Genesis 1:27-28)

Man, being made in the image of God, must then be like God in his unity within society and civilization. When God looked upon Adam, alone and without any helper, He, in the comprehension of His infinite knowledge, said: It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” (Genesis 2:18)

God is not alone —unlike the god of the deists or the Muslims — He is Father, He is Son, He is Holy Spirit, and in their unity there is an ineffable love and transcendent intimacy that lies between them, that is so great in passion that the Son cried to the Father: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)

The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit
I was watching the movie Cast Away, and as I was watching Tom Hanks talking to the volleyball, Wilson, a meditation came to my mind: man cannot live alone, and so ingrained is this law within our hearts, that when we are in our most isolated state, in our highest point of aloneness, in our severest disposition of abandonment, we will talk with our selves.
This is inherent within human nature, for we are made in the image of God, and even God is not alone, for the three Persons of God — the Father, the Son, and the Spirit that gives life — talk amongst the selves.
And when man lied on the earth, God — not being alone, but talking with Himself in His triune nature, said:

It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him. (Genesis 2:18)

When God was suffering the greatest experience of lonliness in history, He cried out:

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

God is not the cold mechanical deity of the Calvinist, or the detached genie of the Muslim. He is triune. As we learn from the Greeks, three is the number of perfection, for it has a beginning, a middle and an end. God stands in ineffable perfection, but He is known to man, for He made man like Him, but longing for the emptiness of dereliction to be reinvigorated with sublime connection with humanity through the Holy God Who became Humanity.


It is quite profound that in the story of creation, when God creates nature He says: “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3), “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,” (Genesis 1:6) “Let the earth bring forth grass” (Genesis 1:11). But, when it comes to the creation of husband and wife, it does not say, “Let there be man,” rather it reads, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). There is a stressing here on the Triune God creating man, but not on God creating the rest of nature.

The Scripture is emphasizing on the interconnection between the unity of God and the unity of human nature.

Hence it says, “Let us”, “Our image,” and “Our likeness”. From this divine unity of the Holy Trinity, comes the unity of man, and in this is he made in the image and likeness of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This image of the Holy Trinity within mankind is witnessed in marriage.


The Son dies for His beloved, the Church — His bride — and cries of Him with bittersweet tears, “He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love.” (Songs of Solomon 2:4) The blood drips from the wooden gibbet of sacrifice upon the holy Mount Golgotha, and rests upon the earth of mankind, like seeds in the dark loam under the eastern sky. The bride receives the seed of blood, and from such union springs an overflowing of love, that drips like honeydew from the golden hive hanging from the lofty tree. Christ is married with the Church, and in this union between the Divine and the human, does she say with pure love:

I am my beloved’s,

And my beloved is mine.

He feeds his flock among the lilies. (Song of Solomon 6:3)

Christ cares for His bride amongst the lilies, and hence He tells His flock:

Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothes the grass, which today is in the field and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, O you of little faith? (Luke 12:27-28)


God, in the words of St. John of Damascus, “is the Unity of them that seek unity.” (St. John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, 1.12) And those who seek true unity, and not chaos and disorder, will seek Him Who is Three Unified.

Three is the number of perfection, having beginning, middle, and end, it is thus the number of completion, albeit an eternal completion, one that has neither beginning nor end, for the Son Who is in the Trinity is “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” (Revelation 22:13)

Let the one who seeks unity honor and protect the image that is closest to the transcendent Principle of every principle, (St. John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, 1.12) the Holy Trinity of Heaven: the sacrament of holy matrimony — marriage.

Marriage is spiritual, and while it is done in the flesh, it surpasses the physical, for it surpasses all in love. In the words of Chrysostom, “For there is no relationship between man and man so close as that between man and wife, if they be joined together as they should be.” (Chrysostom, homily 20, on Ephesians 5:22-24)

Within every true marriage done in the sight of God and within the Church, there is Christ, because in holy matrimony there is the spirit of sacrifice, and where there is sacrifice, there is love, and “If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.” (1 John 4:12) God is love as the holy Revelator tells us (1 John 4:8), and since marriage is a pure manifestation of love, then surely does Christ dwell in a marriage that does not deny Him, but submits to Him as its head.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) And so the husband and the wife are one flesh (Mark 10:8), and as the Son is one with the Father, so is the husband and wife to be one. How can two men become one flesh? It is impossible, and yet they believe it, because they hate Christ— the truth. The connection between the unity of God and matrimonial unity was made by the Apostle Paul when he said: “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3).


Unity is the maintainer of civilization. No one takes delight in watching a military march where the soldiers are in total disarray, but where the soldiers are in union, harmony, and collective movement. When the soldiers are in war, they must be unified in will and obedience, and if they were to ever be disunited, then the whole nation is in danger.

Yet when it comes to marriage, we take it as a small thing to rip apart what God has put together. We disintegrate the unity of marriage, even though it is that which emanates all of civilization. Hatred for harmony is the love of chaos, and chaos only brings death.

Death is the god the heathens worship, and so they war upon that which brings life: the conjugal union between man and woman. They hate marriage because they hate children; they hate children because they hate life; they hate life because they hate Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. It is no wonder that those who are for “gay marriage,” are the same who are for infanticide. There is no coincidence, for the two coincide and are part of the same devilish army that declares war on Heaven itself.

The war against marriage is a war against civilization. Marriage is unity — a singular unity which, if honored and emulated by the rest of society, will bring about collective unity, and from such, comes civilization. St. John Chrysostom said that when husband and wife “are in harmony, the children are well brought up, and the domestics are in good order, and neighbors, and friends, and relations enjoy the fragrance. But if it be otherwise, all is turned upside down, and thrown into confusion.” (Chrysostom, homily 20, on Ephesians 5:22-24)


The body is in unity, with all of the cells conducting their particular roles accordingly; but if there is disunity within the body, then the whole body is impeded. No one wants this for their own body, but yet we selfishly desire this disharmony for the whole of civilization! Marriage brings unity to civilization, because it is of God, and God is Unity.

By Christ humanity is unified in His bride — the Church — and they work in a beautiful harmony to destroy the works of the devil, and bring the world to the light of God, “that the world may believe that You sent Me.” (John 17:21) And by marriage — the image of this holy unity — husband and wife are made one, to bring forth children and “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4), to perpetuate civilization and forge an empire under the Kingship of the Holy One in Whom “all things consist.” (Colossians 1:17) Humanity started from one man, for humanity was created to be one, to be united under God. As Augustine tells us:

Forasmuch as each man is a part of the human race, and human nature is something social, and has for a great and natural good, the power also of friendship; on this account God willed to create all men out of one, in order that they might be held in their society not only by likeness of kind, but also by bond of kindred. (Augustine, Of the Good of Marriage, 1)

God created humanity at first with one man — Adam — and through him the disunity of humanity began, but through Jesus Christ man again is made one under Him. “For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.” (Romans 5:15)

Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and He is Very God and Very Man. Thus within the Trinity there is Humanity, and through this Humanity mankind can become one with the Trinity. God the Son became Man — eternity and humanity became one — and it is by the Hypostatic Union that man can now be one with God.

Marriage is the image of this union between humanity and God, and it is also an image of the Trinity. Hence the Scripture says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27) And afterwards God tells them: “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). Therefore, the union of man and woman is only an emulation of the image in which they were created.


All of the attempts to belittle marriage or to warp the roles of husband and wife, is a war against the order of God, a war against the Holy Trinity.

After the fall, mankind became forgetful of the divine image in which they were made, and became lost in their animal nature, forgetting the higher humanity, and being as the Prodigal Son, scattered about amongst the pigs. But through Christ the demons flee from mankind and enter the pigs, and man — rising above the swine — returns to his Father, and “is alive again, and was lost and is found.” (Luke 15:32)

Thus, to honor, protect, and participate in marriage, is to partake in the divine order, for, in the words of Gregory of Nysa, “whoever pursues true virtue participates in nothing other than God, because he is himself absolute virtue.” (Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Moses, 1.6) The man and woman who are married, become one as the Father and the Son are one; and the one who defends marriage strives to keep together what “God has joined together” (Mark 10:9).

To participate in God is to be an image of God, and even this is done in the sacrament of marriage itself. The love that the Father has for the Son, proceeds from the Father through the Son, and that is the Holy Spirit. As St. Augustine says:

And if the love by which the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father, ineffably demonstrates the communion of both, what is more suitable than that He should be specially called love, who is the Spirit common to both? (Augustine, On the Trinity, b. 15, 18.37)

The love of the Father and the Son overflows, and this love is the Holy Spirit, and the love between husband and wife overflows from their union, as children. Humanity was created in love, and from love comes civilization, and from children comes the perpetuation of civilization. This is why it is incumbent of the state to protect and encourage marriage, and not be an enemy to civilization and go against the very thing that originated civilization.

The Prodigal Son returns

The spirit of marriage is the spirit of selflessness, for the husband is to die for his wife, as Christ died for His bride—the Church. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (Ephesians 5:25).

The Church has a mystical union with Christ. For in all of the chaos and disarray that the tyranny of confusion brings, Christ makes humanity one In Him. The Church must “put on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 13:14), and be as Christ and fight against the enemies of truth as Christ destroyed the works of the devil when He fought the greatest war on the Cross.

God took a piece of the side of Adam and from it his bride—Eve—was created.

On that anguishing day, when the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45) was pierced on His side, blood overflowed, and the Church—His bride— was born from the blood. Blood and water conjoined and poured forth on the warrior Longinus, the very one who struck our Lord with the spear. Blood and water came together, for the blood of Christ came together with the gentiles, bringing them into the covenant of salvation. And it struck the eyes of Longinus who was partially blind, having lost an eye in battle, and it healed him. The blood of Christ brings those who are blinded by the devil’s warping of reality, to the seeing of the truth, and those who enter are (like Longinus) warriors against the tyranny of confusion.

We have to prepare our minds and intellect for this spiritual war that we are in. This is why I made a 2-disk DVD series on teaching the warring spirit of the Christian Faith.

Lt. Governor Dan Patrick on Passage of “Religious Freedom” Senate Bill

REPOSTED FROM https://www.ltgov.state.tx.us/2015/05/11/lt-governor-dan-patrick-on-passage-of-religious-freedom-senate-bill/
AUSTIN – Today, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick congratulated Senator Craig Estes and the Senate members for the passage of Senate Bill 2065 (SB 2065).
SB 2065 by Sen. Estes protects houses of worship, religious organizations and their employees and clergy or ministers, from being required to participate in a marriage or celebration of a marriage if it would violate a sincerely held religious belief. It also protects such clergy and organizations from civil or criminal cause of action. The bill further protects their First Amendment Right.
“I am very proud that Senator Craig Estes and Senate members passed SB 2065 today,” said Patrick. “SB 2065 protects our churches and pastors from participating in any part of a marriage that is against their beliefs.”
“I appreciate Lt. Governor Patrick for making this issue a priority. SB 2065 is moving quickly through the legislative process,” Senator Estes said. “It is my firm belief that this legislation is needed to protect religious freedom in this matter. I look forward to working throughout the remaining weeks of session to ensure that it is signed into law by Governor Abbott.”
“Religious leaders should never be compelled to provide any kind of service that separates them from the fundamental principles of their faith,” concluded Patrick. “This bill is about protecting religious freedom across the state.”

Black Pastors Push for Civil Disobedience Against Gay Marriage Ruling

The Reverend Bill Owens, president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP) spoke to Newsmax over the weekend about the recent Supreme Court ruling on sodomy-based “marriage,” and what he had to say might surprise some folks.
The Reverend Owens is calling on American Christians to oppose the court’s decision using civil disobedience, saying that sometimes “you do something to get arrested to call attention to the injustice.”
“I was in the civil rights movement, so I know how to do it. When we sat at the counters at restaurants, we knew we were going to be arrested. You do things to get arrested, to call attention to it. So many people were silent. The church people were absolutely silent on this issue. A few leaders spoke out, but the masses of the church people were silent.”
The Reverend Owens added that he believed many people were unwilling to speak out against the President because “The whites didn’t want to come out against Obama since he endorsed it so strongly and they didn’t want to be called bigots — and the blacks didn’t want to say they were betraying a black man. I came out very powerfully against Mr. Obama when he stood for same-sex marriage.”
“I absolutely would not do a gay marriage. Absolutely. I think of our children. What it’s going to do to our children. What kind of world are they going to grow up in? I’ve said for two years that we’re going to have to have civil disobedience. They were very cunning in the way they did it,” Reverend Owens said speaking about LGBT activists.
“Since I was in the civil rights movement, I know that if the people come together in force, things will happen. How they will happen, I don’t know. The homosexual community has not shown all of what it’s going to do,” the Reverend said. He then mentioned a 2013 California law that forces public schools to allow boys and girls to use whatever restroom they choose. “They have a game plan that, now that the Supreme Court has ruled, will take this country down a very immoral path,” Owens said.
Reverend Owens continued by arguing again that civil disobedience is the only way to respond to the court’s decision to force sodomy-based “marriage” on us.
“It’s going to be much harder, because we’re going to have to go from state to state. It’s going to be hard to do, but it can be done. Remember, blacks worked for 300 years for civil rights in the courts. Three-hundred long years. It’s not something that we’re going to win overnight. There is no quick fix, but I think now the church will rise up. All the Christian churches in the United States that believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, they need to rise up. We’re asking people to rise up and be ready to go to jail. Why go to jail? To let it be known that we will not bow down, we will not give up, whatever the costs. It’s the new civil rights movement, because they are taking away our rights. They are taking away the Christian’s rights. This is just a start. We have nothing against homosexuals, but when you start talking about marriage, and then indoctrinating children, where are we going? Where is this society headed?”
Tough talk from Reverend Owens, but he may very well be right. Civil disobedience may be the only way that we can show the sincerity and strength of our resolve. It remains important to remember that we are protesting being relegated to second class citizenship and being forced to participate in activities that we find morally repugnant.
One reason that I have argued for the privatization of marriage (or for the government to get out of the business of marriage) is because I didn’t think that we could stop sodomite couples from holding commitment ceremonies (or weddings). By getting the state involved, we ourselves were risking being forced into being involved in these activities, which is what’s happening now. If the state were uninvolved, we could simply refuse to participate on religious grounds, and that would (probably) be the end of the story. But all of that is moot now as the Supreme Court has seen fit to act as royal master forcing us to bow and scrape before them on the sodomy-based “marriage” issue.
To that end we may indeed be forced to run afoul of the law in the not so distant future. Are we ready to do that?

What killed America?

My comments:  He is so right, and it makes me weep.
Was it two dominant political parties always in opposition and vying for power as the founders warned was a great threat to our Constitution? That is certainly as good a candidate as any. These men and women do doggoned little these days, if they ever did, to represent Americans. They instead court the money and the powerful quid pro quo. It pads their pockets and points them to insider deals that make them wealthy on a civil servants’ salary. My one man poll places the popularity and effectiveness of the United States Congress somewhere just below whale crap.
Was it when we started purging God from society? Removing prayer and any other vestiges of Him first from schools and then from any place where one might encounter an offensive Christian symbol. Even though our founding documents make the foundation of this lost nation quite clear. According to at least one Supreme Court Justice, those founders could not have envisioned what freedom and liberty encompasses in our more enlightened modern world. Apparently he does not think God got it right either. Well, who the hell am I to question a Supreme Court Judge? One of America’s appointed for life honest brokers. Turn away now, spewing your drink onto the monitor will just make a mess and hot coffee shooting out of your nose can be painful, although it will clear your sinuses.
Was it when we began abandoning people who wanted freedom? About the time a progressive Congress cut off all aid to the South Vietnamese leading to a communist victory, executions, and re-education camps and to Pol Pot’s killing fields. That emboldened enemies and pushed allies away. Clearly we did not learn from that, because we allowed them to do it again in the Middle East. As we scooted, once again from a hard fought military victory, we opened up the gates of hell on the region’s Christian population and anyone else opposing the death cult that clearly spends its nights thinking up more creative ways to murder people. We do drone one of them occasionally, that will show them.
Was it when the Supreme Court found in the Constitution the right to kill unborn children? Want to speak to me about genocide? We own the greatest one ever committed – and it is ongoing. Our president did ask God to bless Planned Parenthood once following a speech to them. Probably not a good idea. As a nation, we will answer for it someday.
Was it multiculturalism? The advent of hyphenated-Americanism? It was when we started picking the carrots and peas out of the melting pot that we began the Balkanization of America. Geeze I forgot we are not allowed to say melting pot anymore because, well, it might offend someone who does not care about assimilating. Being a freedom loving American became passé. American values replaced by hyphenated-American values and effectively destroying what we did have in common – love and appreciation for the freest and greatest nation ever.
Was it when spoiled Hollywood brats started visiting our enemies during war and making propaganda radio broadcasts, hippies burning draft cards and running off to Canada. Or was it when deserters had their bad discharges upgraded and draft dodgers were granted amnesty – and elected president.
Was it when we lost control of our borders and control of who enters our country? Maybe it was when we lost the language. Push 1 for English… When you sing your Christmas carols what image pops into your mind when you sing “don we now our gay apparel?” The language, political correctness all of it together and it is like we followed Alice into Wonderland and have no human guide to bring us back home.
Was it when the Supreme Court decided to rewrite laws by redefining a penalty as a tax and declaring that established by a state really means established by the federal government. Words now mean whatever some self-perceived enlightened judge says they mean. It is just a matter of time until they redefine what it means to keep and bear arms or any other right for that matter. Was it when the court found another right – homosexual marriage – in the Constitution? Using the same rationale for God, one must assume, as used to decide the founders could not have envisioned the modern world. Uh.. Sodom – Gomorrah.
Was it when we decided we would start removing pieces of American history because someone finds them offensive? Does that differ from ISIS destroying artifacts from ancient cultures? Minus the murder it differs not. History hidden and forgotten is history repeated. You cannot find a Confederate flag on Amazon, but you can find Nazi items, any communist flag you can name, the Black Panther Flag the people who stood in the streets of Charleston and said “finish the mission, kill all of the slave masters”, and the Nation of Islam flag whose leader just declared “we have to put down the American flag.”
Was it passive Christians who did not push back? Was it passive Christian ministers who frightened of losing their tax status failed to speak from the pulpit about where the nation was headed?
It was the man in the mirror who grew apathetic, who took freedom for granted, who grew ignorant of the history and founding of our country, grew ignorant of the political process, voted for a party not a man or woman, desired to pass his problems off to the government to solve…
© 2015 J. D. Pendry American Journal All Rights Reserved

Gay Marriage Still Doesn’t Exist, No Matter What the Supreme Court Says

By Matt Walsh for THE BLAZE
The Supreme Court is wrong. It’s pretty simple. They’re wrong. They’ve been wrong many times in the past, and seem to be wrong with an increasing regularity these days.
They were wrong yesterday when they announced that the federal government can offer Obamacare subsidies even though the law expressly gives that power to the states. They were wrong two years ago when they decided that the federal government has the right to force American citizens to buy a product from an insurance company. They were wrong 40 years ago when they said mothers have a constitutional right to murder their children. And they were wrong today when they took out their magical magnifying glass and found, perhaps transcribed in microscopic code on the fibers of the Constitution, a mysterious entitlement to homosexual marriage.
They were wrong, but our culture doesn’t care because it has stopped asking leaders to be right.
They were wrong, but our culture doesn’t care because it long ago stopped asking its leaders to be right. And it certainly doesn’t care about the law, which is why liberals have been able to make the Constitution into an indecipherable mystic scroll that morphs to accommodate the fashionable ideologies of the day. As such, it is dead. It might as well not exist.
So, despite the fact that neither marriage nor homosexuals are explicitly or implicitly or actually or metaphorically or literally mentioned in the Constitution, our nation will now celebrate as a few con artists in black robes pretend all that stuff is in there anyway. Then again, they hardly even pretended this time. The majority opinion legalizing gay marriage across the country and undoing the will of the people and their elected representatives in 14 states reads like a lengthy Facebook post written by a 17-year-old. It says a lot of happy, bubbly, hollow things about how gay people love each other and so on, but it barely attempts to offer anything resembling a constitutional defense or a coherent thought.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that gay marriage allows two homosexuals to “find a life they could not find alone.” Then he broke out his acoustic guitar and sang a rousing rendition of “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.”
This is an embarrassment. Our nation’s highest court has just upended the institution of marriage, dismantled the rule of law, undermined the will of the people, and canceled out the legislative process entirely, and did so based on the reasoning that gay people want to find a life together. Maybe they do, but what in the hell does that have to do with the Constitution? And how was anyone being denied a “life together” simply because marriage has a definition?
SUPREMESFrom left, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan await the start of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, Feb. 12, 2013. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Kennedy went further by bemoaning  the fact that traditional marriage condemns gay people to “loneliness.” Is this man a Supreme Court justice or Barney the dinosaur? If he’s concerned about lonely people, he can, by all means, go and be their friends. But the Constitution was not written to ensure that people aren’t lonely. Indeed, the loneliness or unloneliness of an individual is not a legal issue, and it’s incredibly nauseating that I even have to explain that.
The majority opinion even cites a couple’s need for “intimacy and spirituality” as a reasoning to decree gay marriage across the land. But since when is intimacy and spirituality a judicial matter? Liberals constantly drone on about wanting to “get the government out of their bedroom,” yet here they are, weeping tears of joy as five old people in black robes make legal decisions based on a human’s need for romance. How far does this go? Next will they find that my wife has a constitutional right to a bouquet of roses and a spontaneous slow dance on the beach at sunset?
It’s laughable. It’s disgraceful. It makes no sense at all, and barely tries to.
Yet liberals gloat because, though shameful and incomprehensible, the Supreme Court’s ruling at least delivers them a victory they can brag about on Twitter.
But whatever the Supreme Court says, the Truth remains the same: There is no right to gay marriage. There is no gay marriage. It’s not real. It’s not possible.
It’s make-believe. It means nothing.
You might say it doesn’t matter now because the Supreme Beings have spoken, but I happen to think that Truth always matters. Despite what any judge says; despite the prevailing opinion; despite the surveys and polls and consensuses; the Truth still matters. If it doesn’t, then nothing matters and life is pointless. Your existence has no meaning if the Truth is irrelevant. There is no reason for you to be on this planet if there is no Truth worth fighting for.
And the Truth is that, due to the fundamental nature of human rights, marriage, and homosexuality, a union between two homosexuals is not, has never been, and will never be a legitimate marriage.
Read More:  http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/gay-marriage-still-doesnt-exist-no-matter-what-the-supreme-court-says/

Churches, Be Warned: Gay Activists Now Likely to Demand Chapel Weddings

Posted by Cheryl Chumley on her BLOG
Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states, thanks to a broad interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court — and what that means to churches is: Watch out.
The establishment of the judiciary as the arbiter of law, not the people or the duly elected — as this court caseclearly paints — now sets the stage for a showdown between gay activists and the churches that gay activists can’t wait to tear down. In other words, if gay marriage is now stamped for approval by the highest court in the land as legal, it won’t take long for the radical element of the homosexual lobby to set their designs on churches. Their likely message?
Now you have to marry us, too.
Or, maybe it’ll take this form instead: Marry us, or we’ll sue.
That’s not going to sit well with the more fundamentalist religion mindset of Christianity and other religions that already views gay marriage as a direct assault on God’s word.
Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Evangelical Seminary, acknowledged in an emailed statement the Supreme Court’s legalization of nationwide gay marriage means the “battlefield shifts to religious freedom.”
He went on: “Will the progressive, totalitarian and intolerant left weaponize the government and attempt to force or compel people to affirm same-sex behavior and relationships? Or will they respect the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution?”
Here’s a guess: It’ll be the former scenario that proves true.
Gays, as we’ve seen, have already cried out against Christian bakers who refuse to bake them wedding cakes; against Christian bistro, flower and chapel business owners who refused to perform their marriage ceremony; and against Christian pizzeria owners who didn’t even refuse service, but were rather asked to respond to a “what if” catering scenario for a gay marriage, and answered, in the minds of the thought police and radicalized homosexual crowd, incorrectly.
So it would seem natural to see the writing on the wall, as the biblically-based saying goes, and predict the next target of the gay lobby is churches. How’s that going to pan?
Well, here’s another prediction: Some churches, like those for Episcopalian believers– who have embraced the LGBT culture with “full and equal claim” since 1976, who consecrated the first openly gay church bishop in 2003 and who put out a directive in 2009 that allowed gay union ceremonies to go forth within the confines of the select churches– will herald this ruling and give full sanction to performing same-sex marriages. Others, like Weatherly Heights Baptist Church members in Alabama – who applauded a 74-5 vote of the Madison Baptist Association to dismiss a minister from the Southern Baptist Convention for his support of gay marriage – won’t.
And the federal government will ultimately sic the Department of Justice on these steadfast churches, and perhaps the Internal Revenue Service, to launch discrimination investigations and pull tax exempt statuses. The ensuing chaos will play in the press as yet another case of religious zealotry from the Christian camp – yet another case of Christian-fueled attacks on gays.
So Christians, listen up: Be prepared for massive spiritual warfare. The Supreme Court case legalizing gay marriage in the 50 states’governments is just the tip of the battle that’s about to surge.

Supreme Court Rubber Stamps Same-sex “Marriage” — Time for Nullification

Has our nation traded the rule of law for the rule of lawyers? Critics would say so. And this week’s Supreme Court rulings — most notably Friday’s 5-4 decision on faux marriage — could be their Exhibit A.
Friday’s ruling, stating that same-sex couples have a “right” to “marry” in all 50 states, went down precisely as critics had predicted — and feared. Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the Court’s four most liberal judges — Elena Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer — in the promotion of faux marriage; he also wrote the majority opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito were on the opposing side, with each writing his own dissent.
Scalia was scathing in his denunciation of the majority opinion, calling the Court a “threat to American democracy,” characterizing its opinion as “lacking even a thin veneer of law,” and writing that it “is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.” Chief Justice Roberts, known for his own activist lawyercraft in the Court’s infamous ObamaCare decisions, wrote that the “court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.” Roberts perhaps felt particularly strongly about today’s decision as he read a summary of his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so during his almost decade-long tenure. And putting matters in no uncertain terms, he said to faux marriage advocates, “By all means celebrate today’s decision…. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
What the decision did have to do with, as per Roberts’ allusion, were the five majority justices’ feelings on what is “good” for society. While marriage is clearly a state matter, Justice Kennedy dismissed this reality with an appeal to emotion, saying that the “cautious” approach was insufficient because, for same-sex couples “and their children the childhood years will pass all too soon.” Of course, many argue that being raised by a homosexual couple isn’t good for children, but, as a constitutional matter, this is as irrelevant as Kennedy’s judgment. The Constitution has no Good for Children Clause; such determinations are to be made by the people and expressed through their state representatives.
In the majority decision, which cites the Constitution’s due process clause, Kennedy continued with the emotional arguments. He wrote of same-sex couples, “Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.” This actually gets at the consistently missed central point of the matter: What is this “oldest institution”? As I wrote in an April piece titled “Supreme Fallacy: Courts Have No Business Even Considering Marriage”:
What if someone told you that homosexuals already have the right to marry — meaning, they have a right enter into a conjugal union with a member of the opposite sex — as that’s what marriage is? Of course, faux-marriage advocates will protest and dispute this definition. This brings us to the universally ignored crux of the matter:
The marriage debate is not about rights.
It is about definitions.
After all, how can you decide if there’s a right to a thing unless you first determine what that thing is?
Are the courts supposed to say “There is a right to we know not what”?
The marriage debate cannot be about rights because no one — anywhere — disputes that all adult Americans have a right to “marry.” Some disagree, apparently, on what “marriage” is.
Yet if the courts aren’t going to use the definition operative in Western civilization (and beyond) for millennia, what are they supposed to do? Are a handful of judges qualified to redefine marriage?
Ironically, neither liberals nor conservatives help in this regard. Liberals might reject the time-tested marriage definition, but they never take pains to put forth their own hard, fast, unabashedly and consistently stated definition. One reason for this is interesting. Since definitions limit and exclude, to do so would render them guilty of precisely what they accuse traditionalists of: being exclusionary and discriminatory. They would lose their illusory high ground and a handy cudgel with which they hammer their opponents. So they want to have it both ways.
They want to claim, at least tacitly, that the right marriage definition is wrong while also refusing to tell anyone what definition is right.
But if they don’t know what definition is right, how can they be so sure the traditional one is wrong?
And how are conservatives culpable? Not only do they consistently fail to make the above points, but they actually accuse the Left of trying to “redefine” marriage. This gives them far too much credit because, again, they’ve made no real attempt at redefining marriage.
They are in the process of “undefining” it.
They do this by essentially saying that “marriage equality” means being allowed your own conception of marriage. And it’s again an example of wanting it both ways:
Leftists wish to undermine marriage’s correct definition, refuse to establish an alternative one, but then claim their actions won’t lead to the government recognition of polygamy and other conceptions of “marriage.”
This is why an “undefinition” is unacceptable. As I wrote last year, addressing the idea that faux marriage must be recognized by the government based on a 14th Amendment equal-protection argument:
Asking if there is a right to an undefined thing is like asking if you want to play an undefined game, eat an undefined substance, or marry an undefined entity.
But what if “gay marriage” actually existed as a separate and legitimate species of marriage? What if it had its own special definition because it was its own particular thing? Even if that got you around the definitional problem, it isn’t a legally sound argument or one that avoids the slippery slope [to polygamy and beyond]. This is for a simple reason: People have equality under the law.
Institutions don’t.
The mere fact of existence cannot and does not confer legality upon an institution (slavery is a good example). To imply otherwise is to tacitly set a precedent whereby any conception of “marriage” under the sun would have to have its “equality” under the law. And note here that polygamy has infinitely more of a historical claim to institution status than does faux marriage.
Interestingly, Kennedy beats around the bush of the definitional problem — inadvertently, apparently, and oblivious to it — seamlessly transitioning between one definition and another without ever directly addressing the question of what marriage “is.” He also wrote:
From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons.
Kennedy states that the “lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons,” but concludes a mere two sentences later speaking of the more nebulous “two people.” How does he manage this transition? Does the operative definition of marriage involve a male-female union or just any “two persons”? And how does the promise inherent in an opposite-sex union relate to the supposed promise of a same-sex union? Kennedy doesn’t say. In what could be called instinctive juridical sleight-of-hand, he slips the whole matter by all and sundry — most notably himself.
This is just one of the majority opinion’s “showy profundities” that are “profoundly incoherent,” as Scalia put it. But however profound the reasoning used against those given to incoherent profundities, they cut no ice because, as Ben Franklin observed, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.” So what are we left to do with a Court to which, as Scalia said after Thursday’s ObamaCare ruling, “Words don’t mean anything”?
Reporting on Friday’s Court decision, the Associated Press wrote, “The court’s 5-4 ruling means the remaining 14 states [that refused to recognize faux marriage], in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage.”
Actually, no, it doesn’t.
There are other options.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1819 that if a certain practice ever became status quo, our Constitution will have become a felo de se — a suicide pact. That practice is judicial review, the idea that the courts have the final say on law’s meaning and that their determinations must constrain all three branches of government.
And judicial review has become status quo.
Does this mean we must commit suicide?
Jefferson explained the problem with judicial review, writing, “For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this [judicial review] opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation…. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.”
Jefferson also pointed out, correctly, that “Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.” Have we not seen this truth on full display the past week, with the Court repeatedly proving itself to be merely a rubber stamp for a radical leftist agenda? Summing up the profound danger of judicial review in 1820, Jefferson minced no words in calling it “a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” That oligarchy reigns.
It’s instructive to note here the origin of judicial review. No, it’s not in the Constitution. Nor was it passed by Congress, signed by a president, or voted on by the people. Rather, it was declared to be a power the Court should have in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision. That’s right:
The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court ultimate-arbiter power.
The Supreme Court made the Supreme Court into a de facto oligarchy.
But must a nation meant to be of, by, and for the people watch the rule of law wither under the rule of lawyers? It must be remembered here that the Court has no enforcement power; it has no army, no gendarmes who can shackle the non-compliant. It enjoys its extra-constitutional power at the pleasure of the other two branches of government. And while judicial review isn’t in the Constitution, the remedy for such usurpation is. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states:
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. [Emphasis added.]
In other words, Congress has the power to remove issues — such as marriage — from the Court’s jurisdiction. And, in fact, a bill put forth in April by Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) would do just that. As he wrote at his website, “My bill strips Article III courts of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction, ‘to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, any type of marriage.’ Second, my bill provides that ‘[n]o federal funds may be used for any litigation in, or enforcement of any order or judgment by, any court created by an Act of Congress.’” Congress has the power to “just say no.” It just has to be willing to act.
But what if it doesn’t? Are Americans then destined to languish under the judicial oligarchy? Thankfully, we have another recourse, one Jefferson called the “rightful remedy”: nullification.
This simply means that states can declare that since a given federal action is unconstitutional, they will not abide by it. This may seem radical to many, but it’s nothing new. What do you think is happening with “sanctuary cities” and their refusal to enforce federal immigration laws or with localities that thumb their noses at federal drug laws?
Nullification is happening.
The New American’s Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. provided more details last year, writing:
States that nullify congressional acts or presidential decrees that violate the Constitution would not only be stopping the federal juggernaut at their state borders, they would also be signaling that the Constitution is so vitally important that it must be enforced.
In the Kentucky Resolution of 1799, Thomas Jefferson called nullification the “rightful remedy” for any and all unconstitutional acts of the federal government.
The federal government may exercise only those powers that were delegated to it. This is made clear by the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Simply stated, nullification recognizes each state’s reserved power to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that a state deems unconstitutional.
Nullification is founded on the fact that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the contract, they retain ultimate authority to enforce the constitutional limits of the power of the federal government.
It should be noted that when the matter is fashionable resistance to the feds (e.g., to drug or immigration laws), the nullification is neither troubled over nor even called “nullification” — it’s called politically correct. It’s when it actually could preserve tradition and constitutional government that a “federal case” is made of it.
The reality is that that it’s nullification or nothing. Judges do have the same “passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps” as others do, and they will not willingly relinquish the privilege of their excessive power. And constitutional arguments in court won’t help, especially since many jurists actually hold the Constitution in low regard. Justice Ginsburg told Egyptian television in 2012 that she “would not look to the U.S. Constitution” when creating a governing document today because it’s “a rather old constitution.” The irony of an 82-year-old woman impugning the old and extolling the new may not be lost on one, but her view is common. It was echoed by Washington University professor David Law, who the same year, wrote the Daily Signal, “unfavorably compared the Constitution to “Windows 3.1.’” But if jurists will operate by the principle, as Ginsburg also once said, that the Constitution should not be viewed as “stuck in time” (it’s not — it’s stuck where it’s supposed to be: in law), why should we accept that its interpretation is stuck in courts? If justices will view the Constitution as living and not limiting, why should we view lawyercraft as the last word?
If Jefferson is correct, our Constitution long ago became a suicide pact. But it doesn’t have to be. That’s up to us. Just say nullification.