WILL
THE SUPREME COURT OPEN THE DOOR TO THE CRIMINALIZATION OF
CHRISTIANITY?
by MARIO DIAZ27
The
question before the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell
v. Hodges, dealing with the highly-anticipated same-sex “marriage”
challenges, is very simple: Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex
“marriage” in every state in the nation? No one can answer that question in the
affirmative with a straight face. The question is not, “Is it permissible?” but
“Is it required?”
Anyone
can read the Constitution and see it does not deal with the issue of same-sex
“marriage” in the least and, therefore, the Court should leave it to the states
to establish their marriage policy.
Supporters
of same-sex “marriage,” including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argue that
the country is “ready” to embrace same-sex “marriage,” but that has nothing to
do with the Constitution. How can you go from saying the country is ready to
saying the Constitution requires it?
If
the country is ready, let same-sex supporters continue to convince their fellow
Americans of their position and pass laws to establish it. And if they want a
uniform policy, they can even try a federal same-sex “marriage” amendment. It
should be easy for them. They are always saying how the debate is over and they
have won already, so let them establish same-sex “marriage” within the framework
established by the Constitution.
Justice
Ginsburg could be the spokesperson for their campaign, if she would
like.
What
neither Justice Ginsburg nor any other Justice should be able to do is to
re-write the Constitution to require what they believe the country is ready to
accept. They should not be able to read into the Constitution a fictional right
to same-sex “marriage” that forces every state in the union to promote same-sex
“marriages.”
All
the evidence to the contrary, if the Justices still insist on imposing same-sex
“marriage” on the nation by judicial fiat, they should also consider the
ramifications of such a reckless decision. They will be effectively opening the
door to the criminalization of Christianity. At the very least, they will be
kicking the door wide open to the persecution of Christians (and other religious
groups) who believe marriage to be an institution created by God, which they
cannot re-define of their own accord. Christians simply have no choice in
the matter.
Therefore,
if the Supreme Court magically produces a requirement on the states to support a
policy in direct conflict with people of faith, the question is how much
pressure is the state going to put on those people to comply with the
Constitutional requirement it must now uphold.
We
are already seeing the targeting of Christian public servants, including former
Fire Chief Kelvin
Cochran, who was fired for his faith and his beliefs regarding God’s
model for marriage and sexuality. Christian ministries, such as Catholic
Charities, were forced out of providing much-needed services for
children because of the government’s pressure for them to violate their
deeply-held religious beliefs. We have seen the merciless harassing of
a 70-year-old baker for declining to participate in a same-sex “wedding.” One
Christian wedding service provider faces a
$135,000 fine; others have had to close
shop. According to the same-sex lobby, the Christian wedding
photographer profession cannot
exist if the person does not want to participate in same-sex
“weddings.”
They
don’t want any traditional marriage supporters to be in
business. They don’t want to allow them to work
in government or to contract with
government. And they don’t want other companies doing business
We
have already seen pressure on
ministers and churches to succumb to the cultural same-sex “marriage”
mandate. Christian
chaplains in the military have to fight their way through their
careers in an effort to serve their country without violating their
consciences.
In
many of these cases, no real conflict existed (no hardship to any same-sex
couple) but simply a desire from same-sex “marriage” supporters to bring about
“test” cases to challenge laws or the insatiable desire of a reckless,
sympathetic media to create a story. The recent case of Memories
Pizza in Indiana, where the owners were set up by an
unscrupulous reporter, is just the latest example.
What
does the Supreme Court expect to happen when and if it irresponsibly and
recklessly invents a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage”? The justices
should ponder the question carefully, because much of what’s to come for
Christians in America will be on their hands.
Mario
Diaz is legal counsel at Concerned Women for America.
No comments:
Post a Comment