SPECIAL EDITION: Beyond The Tipping Point


SPECIAL EDITION: Beyond The Tipping Point

unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12).

America No Longer Teeters On The Edge Of The Abyss As The Nation Has For Decades — We’ve Now Taken A Full Headlong Plunge Into Its Deadly Darkness Calling Evil Good And Good Evil

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).

In This Special Edition:

Overthrow the judicial dictatorship

Supreme Court green-lights perverted marriage — a dark day for America

Scalia’s Full Dissent on Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

The Orwellian King-Burwell Majority

God vs. Gay Author Accuses Scalia of Treason and Terrorism

Only the Creator has the Right to Define Marriage

Now that Same-Sex Unions Have Been Legalized

The Founders on Homosexuality


June 29, 2015

Reprinted from Renew America

Overthrow the judicial dictatorship

Commentators have missed the real significance of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in the gay marriage case. He calls the decision a judicial “Putsch,” an attempt to overthrow a form of government –ours. His dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas,was written “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”His comment about the Court using the kind of reasoning we find in a fortune cookie is a funny line. But there is much of the Scalia dissent that is not funny and which serves as a warning to the American people about what the Court has done to us.

Scalia understands the power and meaning of words, and he chose the word “putsch” for a specific purpose. One definition of the term means “a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government….” Another definition is “a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed.”

Hence, Scalia is saying this was not only a blatant power grab and the creation of a “right” that does not exist, but a decision that depends on public ignorance about what is really taking place. It is our system of checks and balances and self-rule that has been undermined, he says.

In that sense, he is warning us that we need to understand the real significance of this decision, and go beyond all the commentators talking about “marriage equality” and “equal rights” for homosexuals. In effect, he is saying that the decision is really not about gay rights, but about the future of our constitutional republic, and the ability of the people to govern themselves, rather than be governed by an elite panel making up laws and rights as they go.

Scalia’s dissent cannot be understood by listening to summaries made by commentators who probably didn’t read it. Although I may be accused of exaggerating the import of his dissent, my conclusion is that he is calling for nothing less than the American people to understand that a judicial dictatorship has emerged in this country and that its power must be addressed, checked, and overruled.

The implication of his dissent is that we, the American people, have to neutralize this panel, perhaps by removing the offenders from the court, and put in place a group of thinkers who are answerable to the Constitution and the people whose rights the Court is supposed to protect.

He says the majority on the court undermined the main principle of the American Revolution – “the freedom [of the people] to govern themselves” – by sabotaging the right of the people to decide these matters. The Court destroyed the definition of marriage as one man and one woman “in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.” In other words, the Court acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally.

Scalia called the decision “a naked judicial claim to legislative – indeed, super-legislative – power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”

Justice Scalia goes on to attempt to explain why this is happening. He basically says, in so many words, that the majority of the Court is un-American, completely out of touch with American traditions and the views of ordinary Americans. He rips the Federal Judiciary as “hardly a cross-section of America,” people from elite law schools, with not a single person from middle-America, and not a single evangelical Christian or even a Protestant of any denomination. He calls the Court, on which he serves, a “highly unrepresentative panel of nine,” that has engaged in “social transformation” of the United States.

More than that, after examining the elite views and backgrounds of the “notorious nine,” he declares that while the American Revolution was a rejection of “taxation without representation,” we have in the gay marriage case, “social transformation without representation.”

One cannot help but think that Scalia wants readers to recall Obama’s promise of the “fundamental transformation” of America, except that in this case Obama has been assisted by five judges who did not represent, or even care about, the views of America as a whole.

While Scalia zeroed in on his colleagues on the Court, we can easily apply his analysis to the unelected members of the liberal media who pretend to offer the American people an objective and sensible interpretation of the decision.

On CNN, for example, anchor Brooke Baldwin “moderated” a discussion between lesbian liberal Sally Kohn and liberal pro-gay “Republican” Margaret Hoover. The only issue was when the Republican Party would accept gay rights and sell out conservative Christians. Baldwin herself is a member, or at least a supporter, of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association.

Conservatives watching Fox News and hoping for a pro-traditional values perspective are likely to be seriously disappointed as well. The new Fox star, Megyn Kelly, is getting rave reviews from the liberals for defending homosexual and transgender rights. A special report by Peter LaBarbera examines how Fox has been almost as biased on this issue as other media, calling the channel “unfair, unbalanced and afraid.” The word “afraid” describes the general failure to challenge the homosexual movement, into which Fox News has been pouring a significant amount of money for many years. Indeed, some “conservatives” have gone way over to the other side, with Greg Gutfeld, another rising Fox star, insisting that gay marriage is a conservative concept.

The Scalia dissent demonstrates why the fight for traditional values cannot and must not stop. That fight must continue because our form of democratic self-government is in grave jeopardy, and has in fact suffered a major blow. A federal constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage is one obvious course of action. But that won’t solve the basic problem of an emerging judicial dictatorship willing to redefine historical institutions, make up rights, and defy common sense.

The court’s reputation for “clear thinking and sober analysis” is in danger because of this terribly misguided decision, Scalia writes. In other words, the Court is drunk with power and cannot see or think straight.

The same can be said about the major media, which cover this decision as just another controversial ruling that people will disagree on.

In fact, as the Scalia dissent notes, this decision will live in infamy. It is as if a Pearl Harbor-type attack has been achieved on America’s moral fabric and constitutional foundations.

In this context, Scalia talks about the Court overreaching its authority and moving “one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.” In my view, this is an open invitation for responsible elected officials to take power away from this Court and return it to the people.

But how will the Republican Party respond? Some big money players are demanding the white flag of surrender, so the GOP can “move on.” This is what the British “Conservative” Party has done, and we see the consequences there, as Christians are now being arrested by police or fired from their jobs for expressing views in favor of traditional values and traditional marriage.

Scalia’s discussion of “social transformation” of the United States without the voluntary input or approval of the people captures the essence of the coup that has been carried out. This process now has to be explained in terms that most people understand. It is, in fact, the phenomenon of cultural Marxism, an insidious process explained so forcefully in Professor Paul Kengor’s new book, Takedown.

As Kengor notes, gay marriage is only the beginning of this cultural transformation. By redefining the historical institution, the Court has opened the door to multiple wives, group marriages, sibling marriages, fathers and stepfathers marrying daughters and stepdaughters, and uncles marrying nieces.

A country that descends to the bottom of the barrel morally and culturally will not be able to defend itself against its foreign adversaries and enemies. Indeed, we have the evidence all around us that, as the culture has degenerated, our ability to defend ourselves has simultaneously been weakened. The recent Pentagon gay pride event featured a male general introducing his husband, as a transgender Pentagon civilian employee looked on.

The next step, from the point of view of those objecting to this fundamental transformation of America, has to be to find those elected leaders willing to act. The presidential campaign of 2016 is an opportunity to find out who understands the crisis and whether they have a way out.

© Cliff Kincaid

June 29, 2015
Reprinted from Renew America

Supreme Court greenlights perverted marriage — a dark day for America

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court announced their ruling onObergefell v. Hodges and decided thatsodomites can now legally marry in all 50 states.The homosexuals are trumpeting victory, but thousands of Bible believing Christians and their respective pastors and church leaders are crying foul and have vowed to defy any attempt to make them complicit in the act of performing a “homosexual marriage.”

Two of the Supreme Court Justices refused to recuse themselves even after they openly displayed their biases and preferences before the decision was handed down. They have broken the laws of the land in doing that, but the real problem is that they have defied the living God and 6,000 years of history to make our nation the sleaze and perversion capital of the world.

Politically activist judges have been on the rampage since Barack Obama was elected and under the protective wing of the amoral, pseudo Christian President, have defied the majority votes in several states which called for marriage to remain between one man and one woman.

One article published only moments after the decision was announced, quoted Justice Scalia, who said,

“So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage, it is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

What can be done now? – Are there any Solutions?

  1. For the believer it is easy – stand your ground. Do not take part in or offer your churches for the performing of homosexual marriage under any conditions.
  2. Bring the Justices who refused to recuse themselves to task. Examination of what laws were broken, law suits and possible impeachment proceedings should follow.
  3. Bring forth a Constitutional amendment. With wimpy Boehner at the helm of a congress with the weakest voting record in U.S. history the odds are stacked against this solution, but after the changes we expect to see in our leadership after the 2016 elections we may still hope against hope.
  4. Get behind and fully support bills like the one proposed by Rep, Steve King, R-Iowa which is referred to as the “Restrain Judges on Marriage Act of 2015.” The legislature alone should make the laws that affect the 320 million Americans of this land – not nine judges, most who are politically biased.
  5. Take the entire matter of marriage licensing out of the civil purview and leave it to the families and the churches.
  6. Grow a spine; engage in a real prayer life not enamored with sports, entertainment, and other personal distractions like the ones that caused 60 million Catholics and Protestants to vote for Barack Obama in the 2012 re-election of the worst president we have ever had.

What can we expect from God now that this deep slide into public perversion has been put in place?

Only a little over three years after the Roe V. Wade decision of 1973, which to date has cost the lives of over 55 million unborn precious human beings this writer received a message which I have waited to see come to pass now for slightly over 40 years. I am convinced that this is the beginning of the end for America, and the vision or message will begin very shortly.

What is that vision?

I saw an economic crash much more serious than the stock market crash of 29. It will produce poverty and deep scarcity across our land, the likes of which has never been seen in our history.

Nothing grabs the attention of the distracted faster than the complete removal of all creature comforts and extravagant wealth.

Crops will fail, stores will close and commerce will come almost to a complete stop. It will not be pretty. Add to that, attacks from our enemies and natural disasters rising to meet the pride of the sinners’ right where it hurts the most.

I take no pleasure in pronouncing these portents, but I was clearly told to do so. At this juncture in my life I could care less who believes me, because when it begins, I will need to say nothing more.

It has been a long, but steady slide into reprobation in America and because it came on slowly, the sinful nation thinks judgment will never actually come. The delay has deceived us.

We have a Vice President who says Christians who believe that sodomy is wrong haven’t the right to exist.

We hear a pop-culture celebrity, Miley Cyrus, who mimics sex acts in front of thousands of adoring fans telling us to give up our beliefs in Old Testament “fairy tales.”

Then comes the wave of pop culture influenced PC crippled Americans worried about the dangers of displaying the Confederate flag even while they are being swept up into the most perverted wave of disgusting behaviors in the annuls of our history.

We see a Pope who is more involved with the smog from Co2 emissions than he is of the black and rising cloud of perversion sweeping the world.

We watch TV and get geared up to fear polyunsaturates and pimples more than polyamorous and perverted behaviors that will push us to the doors of hell itself.

We fancy ourselves as the breathlessly sexual progeny of Sartre when all we are is saps for the arch-deceiver.

We have followed the path of our own waste to infest and clog the sewers of our own nation with our reprobate consciences.

So again, what does God say about all this?

“Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him: But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he feareth not before God.” (Ecclesiastes 8: 11-13)

© Michael Bresciani


Scalia’s Full Dissent on Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.

The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule— constraints adopted by the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts,” denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing the right to keep and bear arms, authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures, and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” can be exercised as the States or the People desire. These cases ask us to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment contains a limitation that requires the States to license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process?

Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today):

“[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

“[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”

But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect. That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ” One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.” The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.” Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.


But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. 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. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so. Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.” (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. 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.

* * *

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.” With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.


The Orwellian King-Burwell Majority

Troubling implications beyond the further erosion of the separation of powers.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom CenterLast week’s decision in King vs. Burwell, in which Chief Justice John Roberts magically conjured ambiguity out of straightforward language, has troubling implications beyond the further erosion ofthe separation of powers. From ancient Athens to George Orwell,the violation ofthe integrity of language by sophistical legerdemainhas been recognized as the eternal enabler of political tyranny.The 6-3 decision, which legitimized giving federal subsidies to people living in states without an exchange, obviously contradicts the law as written. What the majority of the Court did was to rewrite legislation in clear violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers, which gives the law-making power to Congress. As Justice Scalia wrote in dissent, the majority “ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.”

This usurpation of legislative power in turn depended on ignoring the plain language of the law. Again Scalia: “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’” One recalls Thucydides’ famous observations on the corruption of language by contests for political domination: “Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them.” So too in King vs. Burwell, the majority has changed the “ordinary meaning” of the word “state” and made it take on the meaning “federal government.”

Yet this political abuse of language by the Court is nothing new. In the first Obamacare case three years ago, National Federation of Independent Business vs. Sebelius, Justice Roberts justified unconstitutionally imposing a financial “penalty” on those without medical insurance by calling it a “tax,” rewriting the law in contradiction of the frequently publicized intent of those writing the law that the penalty was not a tax. The “ordinary meaning” of “penalty” was changed to “tax.” Just as “War is Peace” and “Ignorance is Strength” in 1984’s Oceania, now in America “State is Federal Government” and “Penalty is Tax.”

But long before these two decisions we have been subjected to bad laws predicated on disrespect for clear language. Sexual harassment law, with its vague language like “hostile and intimidating,” has been an inducement to use the law as a weapon in interpersonal and professional disputes by inviting subjective, irrational, self-interested, and preposterous interpretations of what constitutes “hostile and intimidating.” Title IX similarly encourages using subjective or even neurotic “feelings” to determine that a woman “on the basis of sex” has been discriminated against. These laws violate one of the fundamental aims of clear writing–– precision. It is no wonder, then, that they have generated countless acts of injustice and censorship backed by the coercive power of the state.

Using vague language and violating the clear meaning of words undermine the fundamental idea opposed to tyranny––that citizens are ruled by laws and not men, for a free state functions by verbal deliberation and written laws. Thus the precision and stability of language lies at the heart of political freedom. Scalia alludes to this fundamental principle: “The Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers.” And both rulings have replaced the legislative mechanism for exercising that “rule by law”–– elected representatives, accountable to the people, write the laws––with rule by decree based on the ideological preferences or prejudices of an elite.

In “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell said, “Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible,” and “Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful.” The corrupted, dishonest language of these Supreme Court decisions is an expression of political, not legal speech, and the effect is to defend both the indefensible weakening of the Constitution, and the concentration of power in the federal government.

In other words, these decisions are serving the century-long progressive program of replacing a republic of separated powers designed to protect freedom and individual rights, with a technocratic oligarchy of concentrated and expanding powers designed to aggrandize itself and eliminate the mediating institutions––state governments, churches, businesses, and private organizations––that could check its ambitions. We see this aim in the writings of Woodrow Wilson, who in 1887 complained that the president “was empowered [by the veto] to prevent bad laws, but he was not to be given an opportunity to make good ones,” and who longed to “open for the public a bureau of skilled, economical administration” made up of the “hundreds who are wise” empowered to rule the thousands who are “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish.” We read it too in Progressivism’s foremost theorist, Herbert Croly, when in 1909 he wrote, “The people are not Sovereign as individuals . . . They become Sovereign only in so far as they succeed in reaching and expressing a collective purpose.” And we hear it in a speech of FDR in 1932, when he spoke of “modifying and controlling our economic units,” “distributing wealth and products more equitably,” qualifying “the freedom of action of individual units within the business,” and effecting “the re-definition of these rights [of property] in terms of a changing and growing social order.”

Today it’s obvious that the progressives’ “collective purpose” is being realized: for decades the federal government has been subordinating businesses and churches to the federal government, weakening the powers of the sovereign states, pursuing “social justice” through laws written by anonymous, unelected, unaccountable executive office functionaries, and working to achieve radical egalitarianism by the redistribution of property through tax law and social welfare entitlements. What is missing from this “collective purpose” are the foundational purposes of the American Republic: the protection of individual rights and property, the fostering of political freedom and autonomy, and defending both freedom and rights against the tyrannical ambitions of elites and masses alike. Rather, today we see at work ––in the executive tyranny of Barack Obama, in the intrusive regulatory power of unelected agencies like the IRS and the EPA, and in the hubris of the Supreme Court in rewriting plainly written law to serve the progressive agenda––the “new instruments of public power” of the sort that FDR boasted about in 1936.  Lost has been the Founders’ concern to protect the people’s freedom from the tendency of power to corrupt those who possess it.

This dismantling of the Constitutional political order has depended on the corruption of language. As Orwell wrote in 1946, “One ought to recognise that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.” If we want to recover our political heritage, we need, as Scalia did in his dissent, to continually call out the violence against language that has always accompanied the expansion of tyranny.


God vs. Gay Author Accuses Scalia of Treason and Terrorism

Sorry, dissent is no longer patriotic.

What many people don’t seem to understand about the left is that there is no endpoint except absolute power. The left doesn’t score a political touchdown and then head off to celebrate the way we do. It plays sore winner by spewing anger even when it wins and then it begins ramping up to the new crazy level of totalitarianism.Here’s where we’re headed now courtesy of the author of God vs. Gay and Evolving Dharma.

Rather than merely state their views and disagreements, they use heated language to accuse the five-person majority of imperialism, a “putsch,” and worse.

Thus, the unprecedented calls of elected officials for open revolt against the Supreme Court—a shocking display of treason—are now accompanied by calls from within the Court itself that Obergefell is illegitimate, and the Supreme Court itself no longer worthy of full respect.

Strong dissents have been stated before. The left loved it when Ginsburg was incoherently ranting about something or other.

But of course we have one law for conservatives and another for the left. That’s how it always works.

 Why not just tell the Religious Right to buy pitchforks and blowtorches? Chief Justice Roberts’ ironic opinion is immoderate in alleging immoderacy, extreme in alleging extremism.

So Jay Michaelson is extreme for his extremist language in condemning what he claims is the extremism of Roberts’ decision regarding Kennedy’s extremism. We can go around like this all day.

But of course Michaelson’s bizarre rant won’t be complete without somehow linking Charleston and the Confederate flag to all this.

Justice Scalia came next. And he begins thus: “I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

It seems inevitable that rhetoric like this will stir the next Confederate flag-waving zealot to an act of, if not domestic terrorism, at least outrageous revolt. How could it be otherwise?

How indeed?

When a liberal warns that a ruling is a threat to democracy, it’s passionate activism. When a conservative does it, it’s terrorism and the return of the Confederacy.

At the risk of climbing on the extremism merry-go-round, liberals are showing a determination to silence and suppress any opposition under the guise of condemning extremism. Michaelson’s wildly dishonest attempts at accusing a Supreme Court justice of inspiring terrorism show just how determined those like him are to silence the opposition.

During the Bush years, liberals whined incessantly that democracy was under attack and that we were a day away from a totalitarian state that would round up all the opposition. And yet I don’t recall mainstream conservative outlets of accusing Ginsburg or Kennedy of inspiring acts of terrorism.

Michaelson’s vicious ravings show where the left is headed and why they have to be fought. This isn’t about gay rights. It’s about the elimination of civil rights.

Only the Creator has the Right to Define Marriage

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

As the Christian worldview continues to evaporate in American culture, rank and file Americans are alienating themselves from the reality of the one true God. This widening chasm between personal belief/practice and spiritual reality is reflected in court decisions and political trends. Incredibly, this devolution strikes at the very heart of the nation’s origins and its ability to perpetuate itself. The Creator alluded to in America’s founding documents and the organic writings of most of the Founders and Framers is swiftly being brushed aside and marginalized in daily life.

The only legitimate way to evaluate and regulate human behavior is to look to the Creator. He is the One Who, in the words of the Founders of the American Republic, “created” all men, “endowed” them with life, provides them with “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” and who functions as “the Supreme Judge of the world” (Declaration of…, 1776). If human opinion becomes the standard for judging ethical behavior, nothing but confusion, contradiction, and inconsistency can result.

The latest glaring evidence of this sad circumstance comes from the highest court in the land (Chappell, 2015). In a 5 to 4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court has brazenly flaunted the definition of marriage that has prevailed throughout western civilization, and most certainly in America from the beginning. This definition did not originate with men or nations. It came directly from the Creator of humanity and the Universe. When God spoke the Creation into existence, he declared forthrightly: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Jesus Christ reaffirmed the same thing (Matthew 19:4-6). One man for one woman has been the bedrock of civilization for 6,000 years, with exceptions confined to an immoral and depraved minority. Yet, now, a nation noted throughout the world for over two centuries as a bastion of Christianity has stunned humanity with an unprecedented leap into the quagmire of moral corruption and unrestrained devotion to sexual insanity (cf. Miller, 2006).

This unhappy state of affairs most certainly saddens those who yet retain a sense of Christian morally. Yet those who still believe in the God of the Bible are undaunted and unmoved by the high court’s shameful stance. For you see, only the Creator has the right to define lawful marriage—and all other human behavior. Those who reject His will inevitably will suffer the consequences of their spurning of the Creator’s prescription for happiness and contentment in this life, and eternal security in the life to come.

Consider the similarity between our day and the social setting depicted for the Thessalonians, which speaks of the

unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12).

It gives Christians no comfort to be reminded of Jesus’ warning on those who are dancing in the streets with jubilation over the Court’s decision: “Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep” (Luke 6:25). The warning issued to Jeremiah’s contemporaries trumpets an eerie warning:

“Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time I punish them, they shall be cast down,” says the LORD (Jeremiah 6:15).

Whatever people believe, say, or do, the fact remains: The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Court. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah discovered—there will be a day of reckoning. “Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7). God still declares: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them” (Deuteronomy 32:35, NIV).


Chappell, Bill (2015), “Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal in All 50 States,” NPR, June 26, http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages.

Miller, Dave (2006), Sexual Anarchy (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Copyright © 2015 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the “America’s Culture War” section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
Phone (334) 272-8558(334) 272-8558


Now that Same-Sex Unions Have Been Legalized

by Melvin Otey, J.D., M.Div.

[NOTE: Auxiliary staff writer Melvin Otey served in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C. as a Trial Attorney in the Review and Policy Unit of the Organized Crime and Gang Section, responsible for reviewing all RICO and VICAR prosecutions nationwide. He also taught at the University of the District of Columbia Law School. In addition to writing for Apologetics Press, Otey now serves as an Associate Professor of Law at the Faulkner University Jones School of Law in Montgomery and as an adjunct professor at Amridge University.]

There are watershed moments in the history of any nation, and America is no different in this regard. Critical turning points have included armed conflicts like the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. They have included speeches like Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” address to Virginia’s delegates in 1775 and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the March on Washington in 1963. The course of affairs in America has also been decisively impacted by court rulings like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court reached a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that will surely qualify as yet another watershed moment in American history.


With the Supreme Court’s mandate that all 50 states recognize homosexual “marriages,” American authorities have once again declined to restrain evil and decided instead to sanction what Jehovah clearly condemns (but see Romans 13:3-5). Make no mistake: whatever popular opinions may be in society today, whatever novel theories are bandied about in the halls of academia to explain homosexual conduct, and whatever laws are passed by men, this is sinful behavior. It is one of several behaviors for which unrepentant sinners will be eternally lost (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Jehovah, the Creator of mankind and marriage, is as clear on this matter as He is on any subject. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22, ESV). “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). While many today seemingly accept the notion that people are “born homosexual” (without any scientific support), homoerotic behavior is really a consequence of people turning away from Jehovah to worship themselves and lower aspects of His creation. In Romans 1, the apostle Paul explained:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committingshameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty fortheir error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done (emp. added).

Of course, in the first century when Paul wrote, homosexuality was common and accepted in the Roman Empire, just as it is becoming more common and more accepted in America and Western Civilization at-large. Remember, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34; cf. Ezekiel 16:49-50).

The Court’s decision is merely the latest in a line of critical markers for the accelerated and abysmal moral decline of the United States. It follows on the heels of the introduction of the theory of evolution into school curricula, the legalization of abortion on demand, and the proliferation of no-fault divorce. Our society is at war with our God, and the Court’s decision once again crystallizes the stark contrast between God’s law and man’s law. This decline in our national morality does not bode well for our national future: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).


More than ever before, it is absolutely vital that Christians in America grasp the reality of our circumstances. Whatever ideals one may hold about what America used to be, and whatever dreams one may have about what it will become, we must walk circumspectly in these evil and decadent days (Ephesians 5:15-16). We live in Sodom and Gomorrah. This is Babylon and Rome, and we must develop realistic expectations in order to prepare for what is forthcoming. All those who resist this latest ordinance of the State and speak against homosexuality as the Bible does should anticipate mounting aggression and increasingly overt hostility from his neighbors and the authorities. “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12).

Of course, aggression and hostility and persecution have been evident for some time now (albeit at a relatively lower level). Those who have dared to voice concern with their employers’ “diversity” campaigns, designed largely to compel acceptance of homoerotic behavior, have been sent to “sensitivity training” or fired. Business owners who have declined to sell flowers or cakes for homosexual wedding ceremonies specifically because of their religious convictions have been sued, fined and driven out of business. People from all walks of life are publicly excoriated and harassed if they even suggest that this particular sin is unnatural and unhealthy for individuals, families, and society-at-large. Increasingly, everyone is thought to have freedom of speech in America except those who disagree with homosexuality, and the tide is unlikely to change in the near future.

There is room to lament and decry what is occurring, but Christians cannot expend inordinate energy in this regard because we cannot afford to be inert any longer. We must move forward. In light of what is occurring in American society, in general, and the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding same-sex unions, in particular, Christians must consider how the church should proceed in the days to come.

Preach the Truth

We must preach and teach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It will make us unpopular, but we must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29) and bear the consequences for preaching and teaching Christ (Acts 5:40-42). Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that Biblical speech opposing homosexual behavior is a “hate crime” in February 2013. It is seemingly only a matter of time before American courts do the same, and well-funded advocates of the homosexual agenda are aggressively marshaling their resources to ensure that they do.

Following their latest victory in the Supreme Court, these advocates will ramp up their focus on policing speech in the workplace, schools, businesses, and public squares across America. Consequently, the costs for teaching “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) on matters of marriage and sexuality will increase dramatically. People are going to be sued and convicted as criminals for merely saying what the Bible says; they will be fined and ultimately jailed. Still, we must not waver or compromise; rather, we must “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2).

Protect the Church

Of course, being committed to speaking and living the truth does not mean Christians should be ignorant of or unprepared for the consequences. We are to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16). Those promoting acceptance of homoeroticism are doing it largely through the courts, and this means they will continue suing people. Consequently, church sermons and Web sites will be scoured for statements disapproving of homosexuality. Also, preachers and churches will increasingly receive inquiries from litigious individuals concerning their willingness to perform same-sex weddings, and they must take proper precautions.

In anticipation of inquiries like this, preachers should strongly consider adopting an announced policy of refusing to officiate wedding ceremonies where he has not personally provided pre-marital, Bible-based, spiritual counseling to those wanting to exchange vows. This is advisable for several reasons, but a consistent practice in this regard will require those seeking the preacher’s assistance for a homosexual union to submit to several sessions of counseling on what the Bible teaches about marriage. Those who are not interested in entering a union guided by the Scriptures are unlikely to participate in such a series. However, even if two men or two women participated in the series (which would be great), a preacher could still decline to officiate the ceremony if the parties are unwilling to repent of their sin, just as he would decline to officiate if he discovered that the union would be adulterous (e.g., Matthew 5:31-32, 19:9). The basis for refusal, then, would be the parties’ express intention of entering into a union that does not conform to the teachings of Scripture, which he is duty-bound to uphold.

Congregations should also be proactive and adopt insulating language and policies before trouble of this kind darkens its doors. For instance, every church’s bylaws should include a statement of faith regarding marriage, gender, and sexuality and clearly identify the Bible as the final authority for all matters of faith and practice. A church might also adopt a policy limiting the use of its facilities and grounds to the religious purposes expressed in its bylaws. If its buildings and grounds are to be used for weddings, the church should amend its bylaws to expressly state that weddings conducted by church staff or on church grounds are “religious ceremonies” (because they involve acts of prayer, singing hymns, reading Scripture, and an exchange of vows in which a man and woman enter into a covenant with God and one another; see Matthew 19:6 and Malachi 2:14-15) and limit the use of church facilities to ceremonies involving “members in good standing” (and perhaps “their children” or “immediate family members”). As long as the limitation is not based on sexual orientation and is consistently applied, the congregation is likely to either avoid a lawsuit or successfully withstand a legal challenge if it comes.


The Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges will certainly lead to increased pressure on the church. Those who support the homosexual agenda will target conservative preachers and churches (they have already been targeted in other countries), and the ones saying “no gay marriages” are surely going to end up in litigation, whether civil or criminal. Of course, this does not change our responsibilities one iota; we must stand with the Lord in speaking and teaching the truth. Along the way, we must be prudent and wise in protecting the church because, even if churches successfully defend against lawsuits of this kind, the drain on resources that comes with being swept up in litigation would distract its members and significantly undermine its work.

Copyright © 2015 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the “America’s Culture War” section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
Phone (334) 272-8558(334) 272-8558



The Founders on Homosexuality

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Of those living today in America who were alive 50 years ago, few could have imagined, let alone predicted, that homosexuality would encroach on our culture as it has. In fact, it would have been unthinkable. The rapidity with which homosexual activists continue successfully to bully the nation to normalize what once was universally considered abnormal is astonishing. And toleration has not satisfied them. Allowing their views to be taught in public schools has not appeased them. No, they insist that societal endorsement extend to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

A pernicious plague of sexual insanity is creeping insidiously through American civilization. Far more deadly than the external threat of terrorism, or even the inevitable dilution of traditional American values caused by the infiltration of illegal immigrants and the influx of those who do not share the Christian worldview, this domino effect will ultimately end in the moral implosion of America. Indeed, America is being held captive by moral terrorists. The social engineers of “political correctness” have been working overtime for decades to restructure public morality.

The Founding Fathers of these United States would be incredulous, incensed, and outraged. They understood that acceptance of homosexuality would undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization. Sodomy, the longtime historical term for same-sex relations, was a capital crime under British common law. Sir William Blackstone, British attorney, jurist, law professor, and political philosopher, authored his monumental Commentaries on the Laws of England from 1765-1769. These commentaries became the premiere legal source admired and used by America’s Founding Fathers. In Book the Fourth, Chapter the Fifteenth, “Of Offences Against the Persons of Individuals,” Blackstone stated:

IV. WHAT has been here observed…, which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast…. But it is an offence of so dark a nature…that the accusation should be clearly made out….

I WILL not act so disagreeable part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in it’s very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; peccatum illud horribile, inter chriftianos non nominandum [“that horrible sin not to be named among Christians”—DM]. A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: ubi fcelus eft id, quod non proficit fcire, jubemus infurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquifitis poenis fubdantur infames, qui funt, vel qui futuri funt, rei [“When that crime is found, which is not profitable to know, we order the law to bring forth, to provide justice by force of arms with an avenging sword, that the infamous men be subjected to the due punishment, those who are found, or those who future will be found, in the deed”—DM]. Which leads me to add a word concerning its punishment.

THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our ancient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burnt to death; though Fleta says they should be buried alive: either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the ancient Goths. But now the general punishment of all felonies is the fame, namely, by hanging: and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made single felony by the statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6. and felony without benefit of clergy by statute 5 Eliz. c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that, if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et confentientes pari poena plectantur [“advocates and conspirators should be punished with like punishment”—DM] (1769, 4.15.215-216, emp. added).

Here was the law of England—common law—under which Americans lived prior to achieving independence. That law did not change after gaining independence. To say the least, such thinking is hardly “politically correct” by today’s standards.

Sir William Blackstone

How many Americans realize that while serving as the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, the Father of our country was apprised of a homosexual in the army. The response of General Washington was immediate and decisive. He issued “General Orders” from Army Headquarters at Valley Forge on Saturday, March 14, 1778:

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose (“George…,” underline in orig., emp. added).

Images courtesy of Library of Congress, Manuscript Division

Observe that the Father of our country viewed “sodomy” (the 18th-century word for homosexual relations) “with Abhorrence and Detestation.”

Homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws…,” 2003). Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In fact, few Americans know that the penalty for homosexuality in several states was death—including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482). Most people nowadays would be shocked to learn that Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1781, Query 14; cf. 1903, 1:226-227).

Image courtesy of Library of Congress, General Collections

In the greater scheme of human history, as civilizations have proceeded down the usual pathway of moral deterioration and eventual demise, the acceptance of same-sex relations has typically triggered the final stages of impending social implosion. America is being brought to the very brink of moral destruction. The warning issued by God to the Israelites regarding their own ability to sustain their national existence in the Promised Land is equally apropos for America:Where did the Founding Fathers and early American citizenry derive their views on homosexuality? The historically unequivocal answer is—the Bible. “Traditional” (i.e., biblical) marriage in this country has always been between a man and a woman. In the words of Jesus: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5, emp. added). He was merely quoting the statement made by God regarding His creation of the first man and woman (Genesis 1:27; 2:24). God created Adam and Eve—not Adam and Steve, or Eve and Ellen. And throughout the rest of biblical history, God’s attitude toward same-sex relations remained the same (Miller, et al., 2003).

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination…. Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations…lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you (Leviticus 18:22-28, emp. added).

Mark it down: THE GOD OF THE BIBLE WILL NOT ALLOW THE ABOMINATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY TO GO UNCHALLENGED AND UNPUNISHED. Unless something is done to stop the moral degeneration, America would do well to prepare for the inevitable, divine expulsion.


Barton, David (2002), Original Intent (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders), 3rd edition.

Blackstone, William (1769), Commentaries on the Laws of England, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk4ch15.htm.

“George Washington, March 14, 1778, General Orders” (1778), The George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799, from ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit (gw110081)).

Jefferson, Thomas (1781), Notes on the State of Virginia, The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm.

Miller, Dave, et al.(2003), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Reason & Revelation, 24[9]:81, December, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2577.

Robinson, B.A. (2003), “Criminalizing Same-Sex Behavior,” [On-line], URL: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws1.htm.

“Sodomy Laws in the United States” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm.

Copyright © 2008 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the “America’s Culture War” section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
Phone (334) 272-8558(334) 272-8558




, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply, please --- thank you.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes