It Was Always About The Christians

After The Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council declared marriage, as we have known it for 10,000 years, to be null and void, most of the chattering skulls on what passes for the Right these days went into predictable hysterics. Progressive lunatics decorated themselves in rainbows, celebrating without fully understanding what it is they are celebrating. They just like gloating.

So far the only chattering skull to sort of get what’s happening is David French at National Review.

The most striking aspect of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which created a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, was its deep emotion. This was no mere legal opinion. Indeed, the law and Constitution had little to do with it. (To Justice Kennedy, the most persuasive legal precedents were his own prior opinions protecting gay rights.) This was a statement of belief, written with the passion of a preacher, meant to inspire.

Consider the already much-quoted closing: As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. 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.

Or this:

“Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.”

This isn’t constitutional law, it’s theology — a secular theology of self-actualization — crafted in such a way that its adherents will no doubt ask, “What decent person can disagree?” This is about love, and the law can’t fight love. Justice Kennedy’s opinion was nine parts romantic poetry and one part legal analysis (if that).

It has always been theology. The striking thing about the century long battle between the Cult of Modern Liberalism and the American Right is how uneven the fight has been. One side is focused, never losing sight of the bigger goals. The other side is composed of blithering idiots convinced they can talk their opponents out of destroying them.

And destruction is the only end possible. The Cult never loses sight of their main targets. The health care bill was mostly changes in the law to interfere with the free exercise of religion. Forcing some Christians to pay for abortions, for example, is forcing them to violate their faith. Do that enough and even the faithful give up. History is clear. Conversion is always compulsory.

This piece in America’s Newspaper of Record shines the light on what comes next.

On Friday, in a momentous decision, the Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriages nationwide. But the fight over how those weddings are accommodated or recognized, particularly by religious organizations, is far from over.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent noted the many outstanding issues, which is why he would have preferred states passing laws allowing gay marriage, rather than judicial fiat. For Roberts, only legislation or voter initiatives signal “true acceptance.” Also, “respect for sincere religious conviction” led to “accommodations for religious practice” in every jurisdiction to democratically adopt it.

Those religious-liberty protections make clear that pre-existing bans on sexual-orientation discrimination — which provide sorely needed protections to LGBT individuals in housing, hiring and public accommodations — do not inadvertently spill over to a religious sacrament like marriage.

For example, in DC, Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Washington, marriage counseling provided by churches could continue to cater exclusively to heterosexual couples. After extensive hearings, legislatures in four states expressly provided that religious social-services agencies could continue to place children exclusively with heterosexual married couples, although in three states, such placements may occur only if the program receives no public money.

The First Amendment, courts agree, means churches can refuse to conduct religious ceremonies for same-sex partners if it conflicts with their belief. But what if, say, a couple wants to hold a reception in a church basement? Can they be refused?

The dissenters skewered Justice Anthony Kennedy for trivializing the impact on religious believers. Kennedy says, “The First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”

Clarence Thomas countered that “individuals and churches [will be] confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples,” an “inevitability” that the majority’s “weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph” is wholly insufficient to address. Samuel Alito worried that “those who cling to old beliefs . . . risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

At oral argument, Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli the question nagging many religiously affiliated educational institutions — the fact that Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status in the 1980s because it opposed interracial marriage. “So, would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?”

Verrilli conceded that tax exemption is “certainly going to be an issue.”

Of course it is going to be an issue. It has always been the issue. The whole point of gay marriage, after all, is to further bust up the traditional family and to marginalize Christian churches. A central tenet of the Cult of Modern Liberalism is the first and only loyalty of the people is to the state. The state is not just a government but the entirety of life. Nothing is outside the state, including God. This reads like it was written yesterday by Barak Obama for a reason.

What will happen from here is a wave of lawsuits against anyone and everyone holding out against the Homintern. This will include churches. Initially the courts will try to beat back this assault on the First Amendment, but in a decade the cost of not embracing the sodomite banner will break the remaining holdouts. Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings will lose their tax exempt status. Many will close. Being a Christian will be equated with being in the Klan.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
east indiaman
Guest
east indiaman

“It has always been theology. The striking thing about the century long battle between the Cult of Modern Liberalism and the American Right is how uneven the fight has been. One side is focused, never losing sight of the bigger goals. The other side is composed of blithering idiots convinced they can talk their opponents out of destroying them.” I commented on an earlier post of yours wondering if progressives are the new gnostics. I’m not sure if that’s true, but a lot of things seem to be falling in place. Especially the conservative blindness and inability to push back.… Read more »

mysterian
Guest
mysterian

They are not the new Gnostics but the old Sophists…

joe_mama
Guest
joe_mama

It will eventually end in blood.

trackback

[…] here… […]

UKer
Guest
UKer

“But the fight over how those weddings are accommodated or recognized, particularly by religious organizations, is far from over.”

Good luck with the muslims. Or will that be the one bridge that can’t be crossed because of the big troll underneath?

One further thought: will it be that Christianity will now largely be driven into secrecy, the way it used to be 2000 years ago? Perhaps Christians will have a secret nod or wink or show their left leg or something to strangers.

jd
Guest
jd

If a Christian preacher or priest is worth a damn, he will uphold the beliefs of his religion no matter what punishment is meted out. No matter what. If they do not, they are not Christian.

Member

House churches worked pretty well in the PRC and USSR. You would probably not want to bring your kids in the event they would blab. But barring Mrs. Kravitz ratting you out, it might work. Since it would all be adults and adult couples, you could even use swinging as a cover story. How ironic would that be? If social disintegration really gets bad, the Church — if it can survive long enough — could always cut a deal with the State: sanction us and we will get things back under control. It worked with Constantine. Finally, the Cult has… Read more »

trackback

[…] Continue reading all this HERE. […]

james wilson
Guest
james wilson

Most people who self-identify as Christians are like the RINO in RINO Republicans. They are not particularly hostile to homosexual marriage or abortion. Perhaps American Christianity will benefit by going smaller. I’ve known a few Christians who practice their faith, and they are different people than those who observe the faith, much less from those who negotiate with it. Christianity is hard but it is not incompatible to liberty. Islam is simple and incompatible with liberty. Socialism is incompatible with liberty. The worst two out of three wins.

Spinoza
Guest
Spinoza

When old cardinal george said…
“I expect to die in bed,
my successor will die in prison and
his successor will die a martyr in the public square.
His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”
…he was trying to buck christians up!

Dan Kurt
Guest
Dan Kurt

re: “My guess is we see a mix of all three, but a couple of generations from now Christianity is no more.” thezman

Spoken like a lapsed Catholic who will call for the priest on his death bed. Au contraire, the Church will be regenerated by this persecution as it has all through its 2000 year history.

The USA is the institution I fear is in its death spiral. Financial collapse and civil war, probably inter-racial, is a likely future.

trackback

[…] It Was Always About The Christians […]

Charles Davenport
Guest
Charles Davenport

Would agree with the last comment. One could do worse than simply praying and trusting in God. “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against my Church.”