Supreme Court vs. Supreme Authority

By: Matt Barber

“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral  obligation as is cooperation with good.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected any day to release opinions on two  landmark cases (Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor) that, should the  court overstep its authority, threaten great violence to the age-old institution  of marriage – society’s fundamental cornerstone.

Also at stake is the high court’s already fragile legitimacy.

Lest there be any doubt as to where the Bible-believing Christian community  stands, scores of Christian leaders and clergy – Catholic, Orthodox and  Protestant alike – have released a statement in anticipation of these rulings  entitled: “We  Stand in Solidarity to Defend Marriage and the Family and Society Founded Upon  Them.” I was honored to have my name included among the list of signatories  that, collectively, represent tens of millions of Christians.

The Marriage Solidarity Statement was drafted jointly by Deacon Keith  Fournier, editor of Catholic Online and chairman of Common Good Alliance, and  Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel Action. It was then vetted and approved  by dozens of the aforementioned signers. Personally speaking, I have never seen  a document that better captures and illustrates the certainties of legitimate  marriage and family, as well as the inevitable consequences of tampering with  either.

The central reality behind the statement is this: Marriage is what marriage  is, has always been and always will be. Marriage predates civil government.  Mankind can no more transmute marriage to something it is not than can we  reverse the earth’s rotation or gravitational pull. Despite an evidently  contagious delusion to the contrary, not even the United States Supreme Court is  capable of overruling the laws of moral and biological physics. Any attempt to  do so is illegitimate. It’s moral alchemy.

“Like other natural laws or laws of physics that govern our lives, marriage  predates government, and civil institutions have no authority to redefine  marriage,” observes the statement. “Marriage cannot be redefined into something  it is incapable of being. …”

“If the Supreme Court were to issue a decision that redefined marriage or  provided a precedent on which to build an argument to redefine marriage, the  Supreme Court will thereby undermine its legitimacy,” it notes. “The court will  significantly decrease its credibility and impair the role it has assumed for  itself as a moral authority. It will be acting beyond its proper constitutional  role and contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture,  and time.”

Indeed, according to the unequivocal precepts of moral truth – reflected  explicitly throughout both the Old and New Testaments – homosexual behavior is  sin. Sin is evil. Homosexual behavior is the central, defining characteristic of  so-called “gay marriage.” Therefore, “gay marriage” is evil.

To be sure, Christians are obligated to avoid sin – to “do no evil.” Any  Christian who desires to remain faithful to biblical truth and obedient to  Christ must not – indeed cannot – pretend, along with the world, that things  illegitimate are somehow legitimate; that things inherently evil can, on a whim,  be made good.

Still, perhaps the greater evil lies swathed amid the absurd notion that six  men and three women have anything to say about the definition of marriage  whatsoever. It requires a rare degree of pride and hubris to presume that  mankind can somehow redesign that which mankind never designed in the first  place.

The Marriage  Solidarity Statement acknowledges “that marriage and family have been  inscribed by the Divine Architect into the order of creation. Marriage is  ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the  spouses, open to children and formative of family. Family is the first vital  cell of society; the first church, first school, first hospital, first economy,  first government and first mediating institution of our social order. The future  of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family.”

The statement likewise affirms that religious liberty and counterfeit “gay  marriage” cannot coexist in harmony: “Experience and history have shown us that  if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex  couples, that same government will then enforce such an action with the police  power of the State. This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious  freedom and conscience rights. We cannot and will not allow this to occur on our  watch. Religious freedom is the first freedom in the American experiment for  good reason.”

The statement closes with the following: “As Christians united together in  defense of marriage, we pray that this will not happen. But, make no mistake  about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining  marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the true common good that  this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.”

This is not the first time the church has faced the specter of persecution as  the unjust consequence of refusing to violate her collective conscience. Neither  will it be the last. Matthew 22:21 admonishes, “Render therefore unto Caesar the  things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

The same folk who presume to deconstruct natural marriage are usually the  first to quote this verse out of context. They are also the first to beat  believers about the head and neck with the deliberately misapplied  “separation-of-church-and-state” billy club.

Know this: Marriage belongs unto God, not unto Caesar. That the Supreme Court  might even think itself capable of redefining “the pre-eminent and the most  fundamental of all human social institutions” represents an intolerable  commingling of state and church. It’s the Supreme Court encroaching upon the  Supreme Authority.

“Separation of church and state” indeed.

About The Author Matt Barber:
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.