The
biggest news from Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments isn’t news at all to
conservatives: Same-sex “marriage” is a threat to religious freedom. For once,
that revelation didn’t come from one of the lawyers on our side but from the
Obama administration’s own attorney. In a rare moment of candor, Solicitor
General Donald Verrilli sent a clear signal on where this debate is headed, and
it isn’t to the marriage altar.
As
the President’s chief attorney made stunningly clear, redefining marriage is
not — and has never been — the end goal of homosexuals. Silencing dissent
is. And you can’t silence dissent without punishing speech and belief — which
is apparently what the government has in mind if the Court rules in the Left’s
favor.
Looking
ahead to a possible constitutional right to same-sex “marriage,” Justice Samuel
Alito asked a key question: “In the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college
was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or
interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it
opposed same-sex marriage?” With chilling honesty, Verrilli admitted, “It’s
certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice
Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.”
Translation:
If churches, religious groups, schools, or nonprofits won’t surrender their
beliefs on marriage, the government will make it hurt. A lot. Imagine what’s
happening to Aaron and Melissa Klein (slapped with a $135,000 fine for their marriage views) occurring on a national scale
through hijacked tax exemptions, Pell grants, loans, and other government
contracts. If the Supreme Court finds invisible ink granting a “right” to
same-sex “marriage” in the Constitution, it will be a declaration of war on
principled objectors. Any nonprofit that holds to a natural definition of
marriage — the same definition our own President held three years ago — would
have a target on its back. (Or a bigger target, I should say.)
Is
it really a stretch, given the IRS’s history of harassment and discrimination against
conservatives, to think that it wouldn’t show a “smidgeon”
of prejudice? This ruling would give the political operatives at one of the
country’s most powerful agencies even more ammunition to punish opposition.
Resistance — even principled, seemingly protected resistance — wouldn’t be
tolerated. The IRS, which has been weaponized under this administration, will
stop at nothing, including stripping tax exemptions, to force acceptance.
Recognizing
the damage his admission could do, Verrilli tried to soften the blow by
suggesting that “different states could strike different balances.” But if
liberals won’t accept the long-held right of the states to regulate marriage,
what makes anyone think they would accept it here? Besides, Justice Antonin
Scalia fired back, “If you let the states do it, you can make an exception… You
can’t do that once it is a constitutional proscription.” Carried to its logical
conclusion, the government would be in a position of punishing any
non-sanctioned views. This is about controlling beliefs and actions the
government doesn’t agree with — which is not only a direct attack on our First
Amendment freedoms, but an attack on what it means to be an American. This is
what the Left has been searching for: a selective, surgical removal of the
conservative voice.
And
the disadvantaged, poor, needy populations the Left claims to care about would
be the unintended victims. Under this brave new world of “progressive
totalitarianism,” as Ed Whelan calls it, churches, Christian media, schools, or groups like FRC
wouldn’t be the only ones suffering. People around the world served by Catholic
Charities, the Salvation Army, Samaritan’s Purse, World Vision, and countless
others who depend on the generosity and efficiency of their programs would feel
that pain. So much for love being love.
As
horrifying as Verrilli’s revelation was, the Solicitor General might have done
us a huge favor. No one has made a better case for Congress’s Marriage and
Religious Freedom Act than the Obama administration just did. Under the bill
that conservatives plan to reintroduce, it would be illegal for the government
to discriminate against individuals, organizations, and small businesses who
believe in natural marriage. The same institutions that Verrilli vows to hunt
down — child welfare organizations, private schools, religious universities,
relief providers, abstinence groups, military religious contractors, adoption
agencies, and political nonprofits — would be spared the government’s
crackdown.
If
you like your religious liberty, you could keep it. A concept that Tuesday’s
proceedings proved is more and more foreign
Source:http://barbwire.com/2015/04/30/0800-obamas-chief-attorney-makes-chilling-admission-during-scotus-marriage-arguments/
Comments
Defining Marriage is not included in the enumerated powers
granted by the states to the federal in the US Constitution (as written).
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment