Twelve immoral and insane Republicans voted with the always immoral Democrats (pro-killing unborn children, supporting genital mutilation of children, and defending an array of gender definitions and the courts to enforce them) to protect same-sex marriage and everything associated with it. We’re already seeing the implications of legalized immorality in the way bakers, web designers, and photographers are being sued for not acknowledging such brazen immorality. We wait with bated breath to see how the Supreme Court will rule in this case.
What’s the next immoral shoe to drop? This case caught my attention: “Polygamist ‘prophet’ accused of marrying 20 women and girls, including his own daughter.” Tell me what’s wrong with what he’s doing in terms of marrying multiple women including his daughter given the new definition of marriage? On what basis is polygamy now wrong?
A judge in Utah has said polygamy is a legal right. Of course he did since the Supreme Court ruled on the moral equivalency of same-sex sexuality and heterosexuality. In 2003, “Justice Antonin Scalia warned in Lawrence v. Texas that the Supreme Court majority had created ‘a massive disruption of the current social order’ by striking down a Texas law barring sodomy.”
Justice Scalia went on to predict the following:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity … every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision,” he wrote. Based on the court majority’s reasoning, “what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?
In the nineteenth century, the courts agreed that it was necessary for the State to acknowledge the biblical requirement of monogamy over against polygamy (many wives). Marriage is, by definition, a union of one man and one woman. It’s a creation ordinance found in Genesis 2-3 and confirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:1-6. There’s a growing segment of society that describes themselves “nones,” that is, no religion. Their vote impacted the 2022 midterm election. “Americans with no religious affiliation or belief skew heavily toward the Democrat party in their voting, according to a report … from the Associated Press (AP).” Everything is up for grabs. Everything!
The earlier courts justified their rulings because of moral absolutes found in a biblical worldview. What was true of polygamy was equally true of homosexuality since homosexuality was illegal in all the states, including the Mormon-populated state of Utah. The arguments against polygamy applied to homosexuality with little or no debate.
In The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (1890), the court determined that “[t]he organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity had produced in the Western world.”
In his dissent in the Romer v. Evans (1996) decision, Justice Scalia wrote the following:
Has the Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a “legitimate concern of government,” and the perceived social harm of homosexuality is not?
With the polygamy ruling, the legal door will be open even wider for the next minority group to argue for their marriage rights. Don’t be surprised if NAMBLA (The North American Man/Boy Love Association) becomes more public with its claim that sex with children is just as valid as same-sex sex and multiple marriage partners.
In Davis v. Beason (1890) the Supreme Court came to a similar conclusion using a religious argument:
Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind.
Without any way to account for making laws other than judicial or legislative fiat, anything goes if there is no outside reference point for judgment. What’s legal today could, on the judgment of five of nine justices, be illegal or legal tomorrow.
What about child molesters? Can we say they are criminals with the latest court rulings?
“Sons of Guns” star Will Hayden was arrested on Wednesday on charges of aggravated rape for allegedly sexually abusing a minor “almost daily.”
Former “Cake Boss” cast member Remy Gonzales is currently serving 9 years in prison for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl.
These men were just ahead of the courts. The same is true of the many teachers who have had sex with students. Today’s perversion is tomorrow’s new civil right.
There has been an almost universal prohibition of homosexuality, condemned by both church and State for thousands of years. “When the first great book on the English Legal system was written — [William] Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England — its author referred to sodomy as ‘the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast . . . the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature.’”
The ruling by the Supreme Court to legalize homosexual marriage placed a moral burden on 98.4 percent of the population that does not engage in homosexuality. Once homosexual marriage was legalized and now codified by Congress, every American citizen and business will have to submit to the ruling. And I can assure you that any resistance will be met with severe retribution by lawyers representing the powerful homosexual lobby.
The Impossibility of the Contrary
Those who deny God have no way to account for the uniformity of nature and its laws. Natural man does have knowledge, but it is borrowed knowledge, stolen from the Christian-theistic pasture or range, yet natural man has no knowledge, because in terms of his principle the ultimacy of his thinking, he can have none, and the knowledge he possesses is not truly his own. The natural man has valid knowledge only as a thief possesses goods.
Restoring the Foundation of Civilization
There are many Christians who will not participate in civilization-building efforts that include economics, journalism, politics, education, and science because they believe (or have been taught to believe) these areas of thought are outside the realm of what constitutes a Christian worldview. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Quoted in William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land: Homosexuality in America (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1989), 57.