ATTENTION: Please SCROLL DOWN this page to find the article titled on this post in LARGE BRIGHT BLUE CAPITAL LETTERS. Thank you.)
"A.D. - The Bible Continues" April 27 Update - (: While I still think there was too much focus on Herod and the High Priest, I was encouraged by last night's episode's greater focus on the disciples and the actual events told in Scripture. Also, the violence depicted was not as bad as past weeks. Let's continue to pray that in the future episodes the focus will be more on the disciples and will be restrained in it's depiction of violence. - Stan
"DON'T LEAVE AMERICAN PASTOR SAEED BEHIND "(4/1/2015) - A nuclear deal with Iran could come at any time, any hour, any day. But will American Pastor Saeed be freed? His health is worsening. He continues to suffer grave threats in an Iranian prison where torture and executions are commonplace. President Obama assured Pastor Saeed’s wife that freedom for this wrongfully imprisoned U.S. citizen would be a “top priority.” Now is a critical time to continue to pressure the Obama Administration to not leave Pastor Saeed behind and urge Iran to show goodwill. Pastor Saeed is imprisoned merely because he is a Christian. He deserves to be home with his family. We continue fighting for his freedom – working in Congress, with the State Department, and with leaders across the globe. We must not forget Pastor Saeed. Sign the Petition: "Don’t Leave American Pastor Saeed Behind".; http://aclj.org/persecuted-church/dont-leave-am
Urgent Petition: Defend Christians - Defeat ISIS. - Go to http://aclj.org/jihad/say-no-to-a-third-term-of-president-obamas-failed-foreign-policy?view=donFrmB&utm_expid=7567081-8.vdNbXkfzQUyJhpww3WXtYQ.1&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign= "..An estimated 76 percent of the world's population live in countries where religious freedom is restricted...
PRAYER MATTERS: "To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world." - Karl Barth; "Prayer is inviting God into a seemingly impossible situation and asking Him to accomplish His perfect and loving will." - Stan
SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE ON HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE (The decision is expected by the end of June so let's be praying for this UNTIL it is announced.:
1) Pray that God will guide the Court to read, comprehend, and take to heart the sound warnings in briefs before them which make clear that no fundamental right to same-sex “marriage” exists in our Constitution! May our Justices keep their oath to uphold that Constitution. (2 Chr 32:22; Ps 32:8; Is 10:1; Mt 5:18)
2) May each of the Justices be gripped by the fact that only one of the very few world nations that presently allow same-sex “marriage” did so by judicial fiat. May they be convicted that judicial fiat is not the American way. (Exodus 23:1-3; Lev 26:45; 2 Kgs 17:11; 2 Chr 20:6)
3) May our Justices conclude and rule that only a sacred union between a man and a woman can be called a marriage. May they rule that no state is required by the Constitution to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed elsewhere that do not meet the requirements for marriage in their own state. (2 Chr 7:14; Pr 22:28; Jer 18:1-11; 2 Th 2:15)
Feb. 25 - Urgent Prayer: "US Missionary Held for $300K Ransom in Nigeria" - CBNNews.com, February 25, 2015;http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2015/February/US-Missionary-Held-for-Ransom-in-Nigeria----/ "Phyllis Sortor, an American missionary in Nigeria, has been abducted from the Hope Academy compound in Emiworo, Kogi State. Nigerian police say her captors are asking for $300,000 in ransom. The Free Methodist Church, Sortor's sponsoring denomination, reports that the U.S. State Department and FBI are working with Nigerian authorities to find and rescue her. Kidnappings for ransom are common in Nigeria and most victims are returned unharmed. It's also possible that the Islamist insurgent group Boko Haram is involved, although it operates mainly in the northeastern corner of Nigeria and Sotor was kidnapped in the central part of the country..."
Continue to Pray for EGYPT - Continue to pray for the tense situation in Egypt and especially for the Christian believers who are being targeted with violence by Muslim Brotherhood members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"INSIDE THE COURT: JUDGES DON'T HAVE A CHRYSTAL BALL ON MARRIAGE" - Ryan T. Anderson/ @RyanT_Anderson / April 28, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/28/inside-the-court-judges-dont-have-a-crystal-ball-on-marriage/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojvqzIZKXonjHpfsX56eguXa%2B3lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4GRMpjI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D
One of the protesters outside the Supreme Court today. (Photo: Brian Cahn/ZUMA Press/Newscom)
Oral arguments at the Supreme Court today were fascinating. Over two and a half hours of discussion about whether the Constitution requires all 50 states to treat same-sex relationships as marriages highlighted one essential truth: There are good policy arguments on both sides of the marriage debate and the Constitution doesn’t take sides in it.
Last year, the 6th Circuit Court ruled that the state marriage laws in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky—all democratically defining marriage as the union of husband and wife—were good law. The 6th Circuit ruled that these state marriage laws did not violate the Constitution. Earlier today, lawyers on both sides of that question presented their best arguments to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court should conclude that the 6th Circuit got it right: The Constitution does not require the redefinition of marriage. After all, the nine justices on the Supreme Court do not have a crystal ball. They cannot predict whether redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will strengthen marriage or weaken marriage. They cannot predict whether it will be good for children or bad for children. They heard arguments on both sides of these questions—and the Constitution doesn’t tell them what the future will hold.
Indeed, the first few questions asked by the justices from the bench gives us a glimpse into how the Court is considering this issue. Consider Justice Anthony Kennedy[considered by most to be the swing/deciding vote], who asked the third question:
"One of the problems is when you think about these cases you think about words or cases, and—and the word that keeps coming back to me in this case is—is millennia, plus time. First of all, there has not been really time, so the respondents say, for the federal system to engage in this debate … But still, 10 years is—I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia. This definition has been with us for millennia. And it—it’s very difficult for the Court to say, oh, well, we—we know better."
Chief Justice John Roberts asked the second question and suggested that while one side says they want to “join in the institution,” the other side says “they’re seeking to redefine the institution.” Roberts went on to add: "Every definition that I looked up, prior to about a dozen years ago, defined marriage as unity between a man and a woman as husband and wife. Obviously, if you succeed, that core definition will no longer be operable." Roberts then concluded: “My question is you’re not seeking to join the institution, you’re seeking to change what the institution is. The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a same-sex relationship.”
This is why marriage policy needs to be made democratically. Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships isn’t required by the Constitution, and it runs the risk of causing harm to the institution of marriage as a whole and to children in particular.If the Court is to be consistent with its marriage ruling from just two years ago, then the Court must uphold state marriage laws defining marriage as the union of husband and wife.
The nine justices on the Supreme Court don’t have any more great insight than ordinary citizens do as to which marriage policy will serve the 50 states best. Unelected judges shouldn’t throw out the votes and voices of over 50 million citizens on this particular debate.
Even Justice Stephen Breyer [one of the more liberal justices] got in on the act, noting that marriage understood as the union of a man and a woman “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change … what marriage is to include gay people.” He concluded: “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?”
Justice Samuel Alito highlighted the same cross-cultural historical point:"How do you account for the fact that, as far as I’m aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex? Now, can we infer from that that those nations and those cultures all thought that there was some rational, practical purpose for defining marriage in that way or is it your argument that they were all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice?
Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg [one of the most of the liberal justices], who asked the first question, noted that the Supreme Court’s decision from just two years ago seems to suggest that states have the authority to make marriage policy: “What do you do with the Windsor case where the court stressed the federal government’s historic deference to states when it comes to matters of domestic relations?”
Indeed, the lawyers defending the state laws highlighted how the Supreme Court’s ruling just two years ago on the federal Defense of Marriage Act hinged on the fact that states have constitutional authority to make marriage policy.If the Court is to be consistent with its marriage ruling from just two years ago, then the Court must uphold state marriage laws defining marriage as the union of husband and wife. Nothing in the Constitution requires all 50 states to redefine marriage.
Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, as well as to be father and mother to any children their union produces. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.
Marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other—and to take responsibility for their children.
Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.
Rather than rush to a 50-state “solution” on marriage policy for the entire country, the Supreme Court should allow the laboratories of democracy the time and space to see how redefining marriage will impact society as a whole. There is no need for the Court to “settle” the marriage issue like it tried (unsuccessfully) to settle the abortion issue. Because the Supreme Court cut the democratic process short on abortion, there is no issue less settled in American public life than abortion. Our politics on abortion are so polarized because the Court didn’t allow the democratic process to work. Why would the Court want to repeat that mistake? Why would the Court want to enflame the Culture War?
Allowing marriage policy to be worked out democratically will give citizens and their elected representatives the freedom to arrive at the best public policy for everyone.
At the end of the day, this is a debate about whether citizens or judges will decide an important and sensitive policy issue—in this case, the very nature of civil marriage. This is a debate about whether the Court will launch a new generation of cultural controversy. To avoid launching that controversy, the Court should do what the Constitution requires: Respect the authority of citizens to make marriage policy in the states.
[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon senior research fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory. Read his research.
"Ryan T. Anderson’s Instant Analysis of Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Case" - Jamie Jackson @JamiePressDC / April 28, 2015; http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/28/ryan-t-andersons-instant-analysis-of-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-case/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojvqzIZKXonjHpfsX56eguXa%2B3lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4GRMpjI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D [NOTE: This is a VIDEO interview of the comments he shares in the above article.]
"Courting For Marriage: Left Tries To Woo SCOTUS" - by Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, Washington Update, April 28, 2015; http://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20150428/courting-marriage
"A.D. - The Bible Continues" April 27 Update - (: While I still think there was too much focus on Herod and the High Priest, I was encouraged by last night's episode's greater focus on the disciples and the actual events told in Scripture. Also, the violence depicted was not as bad as past weeks. Let's continue to pray that in the future episodes the focus will be more on the disciples and will be restrained in it's depiction of violence. - Stan
"DON'T LEAVE AMERICAN PASTOR SAEED BEHIND "(4/1/2015) - A nuclear deal with Iran could come at any time, any hour, any day. But will American Pastor Saeed be freed? His health is worsening. He continues to suffer grave threats in an Iranian prison where torture and executions are commonplace. President Obama assured Pastor Saeed’s wife that freedom for this wrongfully imprisoned U.S. citizen would be a “top priority.” Now is a critical time to continue to pressure the Obama Administration to not leave Pastor Saeed behind and urge Iran to show goodwill. Pastor Saeed is imprisoned merely because he is a Christian. He deserves to be home with his family. We continue fighting for his freedom – working in Congress, with the State Department, and with leaders across the globe. We must not forget Pastor Saeed. Sign the Petition: "Don’t Leave American Pastor Saeed Behind".; http://aclj.org/persecuted-church/dont-leave-am
Urgent Petition: Defend Christians - Defeat ISIS. - Go to http://aclj.org/jihad/say-no-to-a-third-term-of-president-obamas-failed-foreign-policy?view=donFrmB&utm_expid=7567081-8.vdNbXkfzQUyJhpww3WXtYQ.1&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign= "..An estimated 76 percent of the world's population live in countries where religious freedom is restricted...
PRAYER MATTERS: "To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world." - Karl Barth; "Prayer is inviting God into a seemingly impossible situation and asking Him to accomplish His perfect and loving will." - Stan
SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE ON HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE (The decision is expected by the end of June so let's be praying for this UNTIL it is announced.:
1) Pray that God will guide the Court to read, comprehend, and take to heart the sound warnings in briefs before them which make clear that no fundamental right to same-sex “marriage” exists in our Constitution! May our Justices keep their oath to uphold that Constitution. (2 Chr 32:22; Ps 32:8; Is 10:1; Mt 5:18)
2) May each of the Justices be gripped by the fact that only one of the very few world nations that presently allow same-sex “marriage” did so by judicial fiat. May they be convicted that judicial fiat is not the American way. (Exodus 23:1-3; Lev 26:45; 2 Kgs 17:11; 2 Chr 20:6)
3) May our Justices conclude and rule that only a sacred union between a man and a woman can be called a marriage. May they rule that no state is required by the Constitution to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed elsewhere that do not meet the requirements for marriage in their own state. (2 Chr 7:14; Pr 22:28; Jer 18:1-11; 2 Th 2:15)
For a list of 10 sermons you can download on the subject, click over to the website. - https://www.watchmenpastors.org/standformarriage/ I also refer you to my previous posts # 1210 - #1212. The Christian community needs to show up and send a message to the Court that we will not stand by silently while family and freedom hang in the balance!
PRAY FOR AMERICA: THANK GOD for His many blessings on America throughout it's history. May we then ask that AMERICA once again be a blessing TO GOD, by once again submitting to HIS will in our affairs - both personal and national - that He may truly "heal our land." (2 Chron. 7:14) Short of that, we should not be saying "God Bless America"but instead "God be merciful towards America!" (Feb. 24th - Rev. Franklin Graham delivered this insight to his Facebook friends yesterday, "I do know that the president defends Islam and chastises Christians, rebukes our allies and befriends our enemies, and fully supports gay marriages and abortion but denies the religious freedoms of those who don't agree. Our nation is ridiculed abroad and morally crumbling within. We are in trouble. We have turned our back on God.")
World-Wide Prayer Requests:
4/17/2015 "US Missionary Injured in Apparent Terrorist Shooting" - By Abigail Robertson, April 17, 2015; http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2015/April/Christian-Missionary-Wounded-in-Apparent-Terrorist-Shooting/ "A Christian missionary is fighting for her life after being shot in the head in Karachi, Pakistan, in an apparent terrorist attack. Fifity-five-year-old Debra Lobo was hit twice when four men fired shots from motorbikes as she was leaving work...The gunmen, who escaped, left a leaflet in her car with her name on it saying they had targeted her because she was American." Let's keep Debra in our prayers.
4/18/2015"Recant or Else: Saeed Faces New Psychological Torture" - By George Thomas, April 18, 2015; http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2015/April/Iranian-Prison-Guards-Torment-American-Pastor/ "Naghmeh [his wife] says recent prisoner executions have also taken their toll on her husband. Despite the hardships, she writes that he continues to remain strong in the faith.'He wants you all to know that the Lord continues to move in that prison and lives are being transformed!' his wife wrote on Facebook. 'That they had a great Easter in prison,' she continued. 'Saeed desperately 'missed being with our family on Easter, but new Easter traditions were created in prison!' 'Over the years this journey has truly become more difficult and painful for Saeed and for the kids and I,' she wrote. 'Our family appreciates your continued prayers.'We need to continue to pray for Pastor Saeed - that his health will improve and that he will be re-united with his wife and two young children who live in the United States.
PRAY FOR OUR LEADERS: Let's be praying that the Congress and the the President will find a way to pass legislation and enact policies that will benefit America today and future generations and NOT do any lasting harm
World-Wide Prayer Requests:
4/17/2015 "US Missionary Injured in Apparent Terrorist Shooting" - By Abigail Robertson, April 17, 2015; http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2015/April/Christian-Missionary-Wounded-in-Apparent-Terrorist-Shooting/ "A Christian missionary is fighting for her life after being shot in the head in Karachi, Pakistan, in an apparent terrorist attack. Fifity-five-year-old Debra Lobo was hit twice when four men fired shots from motorbikes as she was leaving work...The gunmen, who escaped, left a leaflet in her car with her name on it saying they had targeted her because she was American." Let's keep Debra in our prayers.
4/18/2015"Recant or Else: Saeed Faces New Psychological Torture" - By George Thomas, April 18, 2015; http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2015/April/Iranian-Prison-Guards-Torment-American-Pastor/ "Naghmeh [his wife] says recent prisoner executions have also taken their toll on her husband. Despite the hardships, she writes that he continues to remain strong in the faith.'He wants you all to know that the Lord continues to move in that prison and lives are being transformed!' his wife wrote on Facebook. 'That they had a great Easter in prison,' she continued. 'Saeed desperately 'missed being with our family on Easter, but new Easter traditions were created in prison!' 'Over the years this journey has truly become more difficult and painful for Saeed and for the kids and I,' she wrote. 'Our family appreciates your continued prayers.'We need to continue to pray for Pastor Saeed - that his health will improve and that he will be re-united with his wife and two young children who live in the United States.
Feb. 25 - Urgent Prayer: "US Missionary Held for $300K Ransom in Nigeria" - CBNNews.com, February 25, 2015;http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2015/February/US-Missionary-Held-for-Ransom-in-Nigeria----/ "Phyllis Sortor, an American missionary in Nigeria, has been abducted from the Hope Academy compound in Emiworo, Kogi State. Nigerian police say her captors are asking for $300,000 in ransom. The Free Methodist Church, Sortor's sponsoring denomination, reports that the U.S. State Department and FBI are working with Nigerian authorities to find and rescue her. Kidnappings for ransom are common in Nigeria and most victims are returned unharmed. It's also possible that the Islamist insurgent group Boko Haram is involved, although it operates mainly in the northeastern corner of Nigeria and Sotor was kidnapped in the central part of the country..."
Save Christian Mom Asia Bibi from Execution - A Christian mom has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for her faith. Asia Bibi was falsely accused of “blasphemy” – speaking against the prophet Muhammad. Now this wife and mother of five will hang for her Christian faith.She would be the first woman executed under Pakistan’s Shariah blasphemy law.This is the ultimate human rights violation. We’re mobilizing our international affiliate – the European Centre for Law and Justice – and its partner in Pakistan to stop this atrocity. Add your name to our letter to the government of Pakistan demanding Asia Bibi’s freedom.Go to http://aclj.org/persecuted-church/save-christian-mom-asia-bibi-from-execution; please add your signature to mine and over 35,000 others AND pray for Asia Bibi.
Of course, let's CONTINUE PRAYING FOR AN END TO THE EBOLA CRISIS IN WEST AFRICA AND THE HEALING OF ALL THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN INFECTED.
PRAY FOR THE CRISIS HAPPENING NOW IN IRAQ (see post #907) Pray that allied forces will be able to drive the group ISIS back (see post #964)
/PRAYER ALERT- UKRAINE: As the Lord leads, please pray:
*For God to suppress President Putin’s ambitions to "restore" the Soviet empire.
*For the people of Ukrainen [esp. for the church 'to be THE church'] as they wait to see if the Russian troops will advance.
*That President Obama would use wisdom in crafting our foreign policy, and wisdom for his advisers.
Continue to Pray for EGYPT - Continue to pray for the tense situation in Egypt and especially for the Christian believers who are being targeted with violence by Muslim Brotherhood members.
"INSIDE THE COURT: JUDGES DON'T HAVE A CHRYSTAL BALL ON MARRIAGE" - Ryan T. Anderson/ @RyanT_Anderson / April 28, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/28/inside-the-court-judges-dont-have-a-crystal-ball-on-marriage/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojvqzIZKXonjHpfsX56eguXa%2B3lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4GRMpjI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D
One of the protesters outside the Supreme Court today. (Photo: Brian Cahn/ZUMA Press/Newscom)
Oral arguments at the Supreme Court today were fascinating. Over two and a half hours of discussion about whether the Constitution requires all 50 states to treat same-sex relationships as marriages highlighted one essential truth: There are good policy arguments on both sides of the marriage debate and the Constitution doesn’t take sides in it.
Last year, the 6th Circuit Court ruled that the state marriage laws in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky—all democratically defining marriage as the union of husband and wife—were good law. The 6th Circuit ruled that these state marriage laws did not violate the Constitution. Earlier today, lawyers on both sides of that question presented their best arguments to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court should conclude that the 6th Circuit got it right: The Constitution does not require the redefinition of marriage. After all, the nine justices on the Supreme Court do not have a crystal ball. They cannot predict whether redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will strengthen marriage or weaken marriage. They cannot predict whether it will be good for children or bad for children. They heard arguments on both sides of these questions—and the Constitution doesn’t tell them what the future will hold.
Indeed, the first few questions asked by the justices from the bench gives us a glimpse into how the Court is considering this issue. Consider Justice Anthony Kennedy[considered by most to be the swing/deciding vote], who asked the third question:
"One of the problems is when you think about these cases you think about words or cases, and—and the word that keeps coming back to me in this case is—is millennia, plus time. First of all, there has not been really time, so the respondents say, for the federal system to engage in this debate … But still, 10 years is—I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia. This definition has been with us for millennia. And it—it’s very difficult for the Court to say, oh, well, we—we know better."
Chief Justice John Roberts asked the second question and suggested that while one side says they want to “join in the institution,” the other side says “they’re seeking to redefine the institution.” Roberts went on to add: "Every definition that I looked up, prior to about a dozen years ago, defined marriage as unity between a man and a woman as husband and wife. Obviously, if you succeed, that core definition will no longer be operable." Roberts then concluded: “My question is you’re not seeking to join the institution, you’re seeking to change what the institution is. The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a same-sex relationship.”
This is why marriage policy needs to be made democratically. Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships isn’t required by the Constitution, and it runs the risk of causing harm to the institution of marriage as a whole and to children in particular.If the Court is to be consistent with its marriage ruling from just two years ago, then the Court must uphold state marriage laws defining marriage as the union of husband and wife.
The nine justices on the Supreme Court don’t have any more great insight than ordinary citizens do as to which marriage policy will serve the 50 states best. Unelected judges shouldn’t throw out the votes and voices of over 50 million citizens on this particular debate.
Even Justice Stephen Breyer [one of the more liberal justices] got in on the act, noting that marriage understood as the union of a man and a woman “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change … what marriage is to include gay people.” He concluded: “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?”
Justice Samuel Alito highlighted the same cross-cultural historical point:"How do you account for the fact that, as far as I’m aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex? Now, can we infer from that that those nations and those cultures all thought that there was some rational, practical purpose for defining marriage in that way or is it your argument that they were all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice?
Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg [one of the most of the liberal justices], who asked the first question, noted that the Supreme Court’s decision from just two years ago seems to suggest that states have the authority to make marriage policy: “What do you do with the Windsor case where the court stressed the federal government’s historic deference to states when it comes to matters of domestic relations?”
Indeed, the lawyers defending the state laws highlighted how the Supreme Court’s ruling just two years ago on the federal Defense of Marriage Act hinged on the fact that states have constitutional authority to make marriage policy.If the Court is to be consistent with its marriage ruling from just two years ago, then the Court must uphold state marriage laws defining marriage as the union of husband and wife. Nothing in the Constitution requires all 50 states to redefine marriage.
Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, as well as to be father and mother to any children their union produces. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.
Marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other—and to take responsibility for their children.
Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.
Rather than rush to a 50-state “solution” on marriage policy for the entire country, the Supreme Court should allow the laboratories of democracy the time and space to see how redefining marriage will impact society as a whole. There is no need for the Court to “settle” the marriage issue like it tried (unsuccessfully) to settle the abortion issue. Because the Supreme Court cut the democratic process short on abortion, there is no issue less settled in American public life than abortion. Our politics on abortion are so polarized because the Court didn’t allow the democratic process to work. Why would the Court want to repeat that mistake? Why would the Court want to enflame the Culture War?
Allowing marriage policy to be worked out democratically will give citizens and their elected representatives the freedom to arrive at the best public policy for everyone.
At the end of the day, this is a debate about whether citizens or judges will decide an important and sensitive policy issue—in this case, the very nature of civil marriage. This is a debate about whether the Court will launch a new generation of cultural controversy. To avoid launching that controversy, the Court should do what the Constitution requires: Respect the authority of citizens to make marriage policy in the states.
[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]
Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon senior research fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory. Read his research.
"Ryan T. Anderson’s Instant Analysis of Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Case" - Jamie Jackson @JamiePressDC / April 28, 2015; http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/28/ryan-t-andersons-instant-analysis-of-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-case/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojvqzIZKXonjHpfsX56eguXa%2B3lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4GRMpjI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D [NOTE: This is a VIDEO interview of the comments he shares in the above article.]
"Courting For Marriage: Left Tries To Woo SCOTUS" - by Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, Washington Update, April 28, 2015; http://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20150428/courting-marriage
"The Key Supreme Court Briefs Supporting State Man-Woman Marriage Laws" - Gene Schaerr April 28, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/28/the-key-supreme-court-briefs-supporting-state-man-woman-marriage-laws/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojvqzIZKXonjHpfsX56eguXa%2B3lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4GRMpjI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D
No comments:
Post a Comment