“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that His justice cannot sleep forever”—Thomas Jefferson (Barton 112).
Does anything more need to be said than appears in the title and in the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson? David Barton has written a book, The Jefferson Lies (published in 2012), which supremely documents the way that liberals have tried to both: 1) destroy Jefferson personally; and 2) misrepresent him as it pertains to religion. One anecdote included in the book involves President John F. Kennedy, who was hosting a group of Nobel Prize winners for dinner. He told the illustrious group of men gathered together:
I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. Someone once said that Thomas Jefferson was a gentleman of 32 who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, and dance the minuet (xii-xii).
And he possessed more wisdom and piety than the five justices combined who decided that homosexual marriage should be the law of the land. Apparently, we were not “slouching toward Gomorrah” fast enough; the Court decided to hasten the journey. And, no, it was not based on anything in the Constitution; it was the result of bias.
How dare anyone say such a thing? Simple! It’s the truth. Between them, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had already performed at least five homosexual wedding ceremonies. For some reason, one of Fox News’ legal experts did not think this fact should cause them to recuse themselves. Well, sure—and foxes should not be disqualified from guarding henhouses, either. Any citizen of average intelligence, who has not been smoking pot, would notice the conflict of interest. Were these two women forced to perform homosexual weddings? No, they did so because they approve of the practice, which means that they could not render a fair and impartial hearing on the matter, which is proven by the way they voted.
Many people have been interviewed in order to sit on a jury. They are usually asked questions, such as, “Do you know any of the people involved in this case?” In a jury trial involving a drunk driver, one question might be, “Have any family members ever been maimed or killed by a drunk driver?” They ask such questions because they do not think that a person can be impartial if they have such a close personal attachment to a victim. So when two justices of the Supreme Court have performed homosexual wedding ceremonies, why are they not considered biased?
It should be obvious to most Americans that the fix was in; few (except, perhaps, for low information voters) are surprised by the court’s decision. Is this the way “justice” ought to work? The very concept of justice comes from God, who shall “bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether it is good or evil” (Ecc. 12:14). There is no justice in atheism. How does unfeeling matter from a “big bang” develop the concept of justice when it is not found in the natural realm? Justice flows from the very nature of God, which was the reason for Jefferson’s concern.
Marriage was designed by God. A man and a woman constitute God’s Divine plan for marriage, and it was in the world even before sin! That claim cannot be said about many things. Every culture from the beginning of time has marriage as part of its society. The customs and rituals surrounding it may vary, but the concept of marriage was present. Some have perverted it by introducing polygamy and divorce, but it remains as a bedrock of society—until now. Because of the court’s ruling, the heart of what makes a marriage has disintegrated. The court began its decision with these words:
The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity….
This is gobbledegook that results from pop psychology—not the United States Constitution. Justice Scalia said that if he agreed with such flummery, he would hide his head in a bag. He added:
The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
He is exactly right. Logic (another concept that flows only from God) has been replaced by a penchant for the touchy-feely. What does it mean “to define and express their identity”? Can they define their identity as a transgendered person? Are we to believe that this will only relate to homosexuals and not polygamists and adulterers who simply cannot help themselves? And how does one define “a lawful realm”? The very item under discussion, the practice of homosexuality, was unlawful for centuries. Justice Kennedy led the fight to decriminalize the practice. (But don’t think that he should recuse himself, either.) Polygamy may be in “an unlawful realm” today, but the court can just as easily change the definition of marriage to include a man and two women who are just expressing their identity. Not only will such a move open the door so that Mormons can have another new “revelation”; it will also be attractive to Muslim men, who are allowed four wives. Hey, and while we’re at it, let’s just let them live under Sharia law—if that’s their identity.
Other comments of Scalia (whom, by the way, those in Washington are mocking) concerning the majority include:
The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.
This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.
The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.
The first statement is on the mark; people expect logical analysis of our Constitution from the Supreme Court—but in case after case we are failing to find any semblance of logic; the court seems to be ruling on the basis of emotion and popular liberal opinion.
The second statement is accurate but frightening. Just as with Roe v. Wade, the court has usurped the role of Congress and is legislating from the bench. Between the President writing legislation via executive orders and the Court rendering decisions based on the liberal agenda rather than law, Congress has just about become superfluous. Apparently, they don’t get to express their identity.
The third criticism cited above is also correct—five justices cannot only tell the country what they will do, like it or not, they have basically said that all who came before them were idiots for not realizing how versatile the 14th amendment is. Every citizen should read the 14th amendment and try to figure out how the Supreme Court got homosexual marriage out of it.
The law of the land has been decided by five lawyers. State after state voted on homosexual marriage, and the citizens said, “No.” “Well, how is it now legal? I thought that 36 states already had it,” someone might say. Yes. Eventually, two states voted for it; the other 34 states got it through the courts or legislatures. This is the new means of effecting law—let the courts legislate it. No, it’s not their function, but as long as they do what the entertainment and the news media want them to, it’s all right. Who is going to listen to any objectors?
Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, the next frontier will be the use of drugs. For years, some have desired the legalization of marijuana. Why should potheads and drug addicts be denied expressing their identities? “This is who I am, man. As long as I’m not harming anyone else, man.” Hippies haven’t altogether disappeared.
The Upshot?
Okay, so homosexual marriage is legal—with polygamy probably not far behind. Adultery is no longer criminal, either. Will there be a push for prostitution; why not if it’s between consenting adults? Divorces are easily obtained through our brilliant no-fault system. Really? No one was to blame? Multiple forms of gambling are legal. Alcohol is legal, and how long will it take for marijuana to make it to the Supreme Court—five years? Theft has been minimalized. Has anyone received back a stolen car or stolen property in the past five years? Lying is routine for most citizens—especially politicians. With abortion, we have legalized murder. Are there any of God’s commandments, given to the Israelites, that society (or the court) will uphold anymore?
The point is, “How much worse can we get before God destroys us?” When Sodom and Gomorrah were given over to homosexuality, fire and brimstone made a swift and sudden appearance upon those cities. San Francisco, New Orleans, and Boston might think about getting nervous. Right now, it would not be surprising if some cities were attacked by a highly organized, junior varsity team. In fact, considering the blasé attitude of our “leader,” who acknowledged recently that after more than two years, he didn’t have a strategy yet for how to deal with ISIS, we might be more surprised if there were no attack on American soil. Jack Bauer won’t be there to save us this time, and chances are that ISIS does have a strategy.
Jefferson is right that God’s justice will not sleep forever. If He could use Babylon to destroy Israel, would He hesitate to use Muslim terrorists to bring down the United States? But suppose terrorism does not bring us to our knees in the next two years. We cannot long stand while thumbing our noses at our Creator. We do not know how long He will give this nation to repent. We can only hope that all of these forays into immorality might be reversed. How can that happen?
It’s a huge problem. The President and the Supreme Court are against Christianity, as are universities, the entertainment media, and most of the news media. Bible believers have mountains to overcome. But as unlikely as it is, it is not impossible. With a dedicated band like Gideon’s—only with 300 saints, God can accomplish victories. What ought we to be doing?
The Bible must be exalted as God’s revelation to man. The Word must be defended in every possible venue. God created us in His image. Love, justice, and logic are not found in ocean waves or the Black Hills of Dakota. These come from God, and people must believe the truth. God exists, and morality comes from Him—not liberal college professors or their cohorts on the Supreme Court. It is time for believers to be evangelistic—as never before. And that means staying focused on the goal. Each soul that is converted becomes part of God’s army. We do not have time to flirt with worldliness; let us endeavor to be holy ourselves—an example for all. Truly may it be the case: “In God we trust.”