U.S. Marriage Law Rejects God and Christianity

On Dec.13 of 2022, the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) became law. This was only six days after the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Our President in 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said that December 7 was a date “that will live in infamy.” This horrid new law will also be remembered as another wonderful December event. It followed almost 7-1/2 years after the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision which stated that disallowing homosexual marriage unions in any state or territory of the USA is unconstitutional.

Despite the perfidy of that SCUSA decision which overturned thousands of years of marriage as being only between men and women, we heard and continue to hear no outcry from the great leaders of Judaism, Christianity (Protestants, Roman Catholics, and/or Orthodox clerics), nor even from Muslim clerics living within our country or abroad.

Obergefell v. Hodges set the stage for the RMA. In 2015, five people dictated to over 300 million citizens of the USA the reversal of thousands of years of marriage reality that applied to billions of people worldwide including hundreds of millions of Americans.

A key legal component of the decision is that marriage laws that only permit men and women to marry violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which requires due process of law for all citizens. However, the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to federal laws that are passed and enforced under the legitimate purview of the U.S. Constitution. Marriage, like stop signs and traffic laws, education, local policing, etc. are not under federal supervision.

The 10^thamendment clearly states, “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.” The federal government has broken a basic principle of federalism enshrined in our Bill of Rights by passing a law defining marriage which definition belongs to the separate states. The decision itself is a usurpation of legal authority by the SCUSA. In fact, as recently as 2012, 31 states voted not to have homosexual marriage. The marriage laws of the states are not the U.S. government’s business.

Five authoritarian jurists thought they had the prerogative of overriding all those states!! Nevertheless, there was no outcry. Those states did not send protestors or delegations to protest in Congress and in front of SCUSA about that decision. Nor did we hear more than a few speeches against RMA. Where were Franklin Graham? Beth Moore? John MacArthur? Tim Keller? The Family Research Council? Focus on the Family? The Southern Baptist Convention? The Presbyterian Church of America? The Catholic Council of Bishops or their Cardinals? Where were the Orthodox and Conservative Rabbis or the Chasidic followers of Menachem Schneerson?

Justice Anthony Kennedy and the other four betrayers of the sanctity of marriage on the Court in 2015 had many reasons for their decision. Some of their arguments come under the heading in legal philosophy of sociological jurisprudence. In this mode, jurists will argue that changing social conditions legitimize the overruling of traditional rulings by the courts. This contrasts with the originalist jurists who wish to adhere more to precedent such that precedents govern the affirmation of legal principles. Kennedy and his confrères suggested that the gradual emancipation and equality afforded women in society had much to do with negating rules of coverture which gave males a dominant place in the marriage relationship and in matters such as divorce. In parallel fashion, the homosexual community has gained increasing social acceptance and this necessitates a change in our laws with respect to marriage by members of that community.

Kennedy stated in 2015 that marriage should be understood as a psychological phenomenon, a place to “find freedom, intimacy, and expression.” Not only is marriage a safe place to escape loneliness, a place that provides assurance that “there will be someone there to care for the other,” but according to Kennedy, marriage is a “response to [overcoming] fear.” As this writer will show momentarily, Kennedy and the four other tyrants missed almost completely the essential features of what marriage is.

At the same time, on the other side of his limited or even false idea of marriage, Justice Kennedy reached the peak of condescension by asserting the sincerity of those who oppose homosexual marriage. He went to great lengths to affirm that those of us in the hetero camp have the best of intentions so that we should not be punished or suppressed in any way for our views. Instead, we must predicate the justification for homosexual marriage on the equally valid principle of live and let live. He asserts that heterosexual marriage advocates also have a right to live in peace and tranquility with their beliefs even though they are behind the times, even though they wish to deprive others of the real blessings of marriage, and even though they are overwhelmed by prejudice. Though retrograde, the hetero camp may remain protected under the law. He thus implied that there should be no reprisals against those who disagree with the SCUSA decision. How kind of him for implying that torture or reprisals against the pro-hetero crowd would be inappropriate!

And that condescending view is carried through in the RMA law that was magically advocated for by Sen. Chuck Schumer. People are asking today how Sen. Schumer does not “chuck” up his food when he sees some of the radicals running under the Democrat label, but we cannot forget that this “nice Democrat” [sic] had an important role in supporting same sex marriage legislation.

Advocates for the RMA agreed to certain insertions in the RMA legislation that would exempt religious institutions from the requirements of RMA, although they would not go so far as to accept the provisions of Senator James Lankford (R-OK) or Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) which would have excepted individuals also (not only religious institutions or agencies) from having to compromise their principles on the matter of marriage.

However, the greatest mistake of the five jurists in Obergefell and of the legislators who passed the recent legislation is their understanding of marriage. Marriage is based on principles that the pro-homosexual legislators do not even address. These are principles found in the Old and New Testaments which validated marriage between men and women for thousands of years. First, only women were created out of man and for intimate relationship with men. (Genesis 2: 18, 21-22; 1 Corinthians 11: 8-9) Second, Jesus Christ — a greater authority than Justice Kennedy — said that God created man and woman and that was so that they “would become one.” (Mark 10:7) Justice Kennedy said not one word about becoming one as the basis for marriage. Further, it is directed by God that a man shall leave his mother and his father and “cleave to his wife.” (Matthew 19: 5)

Further, Holy Scripture affirms as the ultimate truth that homosexual intimacies are not acceptable to God. Romans 1:26-27 states, “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” Thus, by seeking to recapture the ideological foundations of the Roman Empire which celebrated homosexuality, the SCUSA decision rejected 2000 years of Christian faith.

Further, and of great importance, men are told by Almighty God to love their wives, but there is no mention of love by the great jurists in Obergefell or in the RMA. Lastly and most sorrowfully for this writer, it is emphatically called to the reader’s attention that Almighty God is not referenced one time in either the Obergefell decision or the text of the RMA.