I was reading yesterday where the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals, which is located in Manhattan, NY, became the second court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The three judge appeals court agreed with a lower court’s ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates equal protection. The case is most likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final decision.
As I thought about the ruling of the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals, it started me to wonder exactly what ‘unconstitutional’ really means these days.
When DOMA was passed and signed into law in 1996, the law was upheld in all court challenges which were few at the time. So what has changed to suddenly make it unconstitutional?
Would you believe me if I told you that it has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution and everything to do with the growing acceptance of liberal and immoral lifestyles?
Think about it. Sixteen years ago, homosexuality was still considered to be a sinful and perverse lifestyle. It was not considered to be normal nor was it generally acceptable. Over the past sixteen years, the Constitution hasn’t changed, only those reading their liberal philosophies into it have changed. In the past sixteen years, there has been a massive influx of liberal judges being appointed to the state and federal benches across the land. These liberal judges are using their positions of power to determine law according to their personal preferences instead of actually ruling on matters of law.
For instance, Cook County Circuit Judge in Illinois ruling on the state’s marriage law. It just so happens that this judge, Sophia Hall is a lesbian who actively takes engages in gay rights issues. Do you think her ruling will be fair and impartial?
Then there is the instance where a Pennsylvania judge acquitted a Muslim of an assault charge that was caught on video and witnessed by a police officer. It turns out the judge is a Muslim convert who ended up lecturing the victim of the physical attack for insulting the prophet Muhammad.
And what about all the court cases that rule any form of Christianity in public schools or government buildings is unconstitutional?
Considering that in the 1799 U.S. Supreme Court case of Runkel v. Winemiller, Justice Samuel Chase (who also signed the Declaration of Independence) wrote in the court’s ruling:
“Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christianity are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.” [emphasis mine]
In 1892, Supreme Court Justice David Josiah Brewer wrote in the decision of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States:
“No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. . . .There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people. . . . These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.” [emphasis mine]
What changed was not the Constitution, but the liberals on the bench that misused non-constitutional material to re-interpret what they want the Constitution to mean, not what it actually says.
In the case of marriage, every court in the United States upheld traditional and biblical marriage, one man and one woman for over 200 years. Throughout that time, the U.S. Constitution never changed. Now we have a society that is following Romans 1:18-31 by not only practicing homosexuality, but approving of those that do. Consequently, we find ourselves with more homosexual judges or those that sympathize with them sitting on benches making legal rulings that protecting one of our most cherished institutions are now unconstitutional.
I can’t help but conclude that the U.S. Constitution no longer is used to determine what is or isn’t constitutional. Instead, it’s what a few judges decide they want the law to be. So from now on when you see or hear the term ‘unconstitutional’ realize that it most likely means that another liberal judge or panel of judges, ignored the Constitution and created law based upon their own personal beliefs.