Perversion of Democracy

Gay 'Marriage' and The Law

Rating: 5.00

Gay-rights groups have begun a scorched-earth policy against anybody who opposes their agenda. And the ultimate victim may be democracy itself.

Listen Now | Download

Chuck  Colson

For two years now, I’ve warned that the drive for so-called “gay marriage” was the greatest threat to religious liberty we’ve ever faced. But I think I may have underestimated the threat, because now I fear the democratic process and the rule of law are endangered as well.

It was bad enough when the President and the Attorney General declared the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and would not defend the law of the land in court. Never mind that the DOMA was signed by President Clinton in 1996 after the Senate passed it 85-15 and the House by a margin of 342 to 66!

But after the House of Representatives hired the law firm of King and Spalding to represent DOMA in court (since the executive branch wouldn’t), something not-so-funny happened. Gay-rights groups threatened King and Spalding and its commercial clients with boycotts.

In an ethically questionable action, at least under the canon of legal ethics, King and Spalding caved and told the House it would not represent it after all. Instead of criticizing King and Spalding, the media celebrated this as recognition that opposing gay marriage is tantamount to bigotry.

To his credit, lead attorney on the case, Paul Clement, resigned from King and Spalding and will defend DOMA with another law firm. Clement got it right when he said, “When it comes to the lawyers, the surest way to be on the wrong side of history is to abandon a client in the face of hostile criticism.”

But hostile criticism and boycotts are one thing. Ignoring federal law is another. Case in point: The Obama administration stopped the deportation order for a gay immigrant because the Justice Department feels that the man could be considered a spouse of another man under U.S. immigration laws. This, of course, is nonsense, because under DOMA, the federal government can’t recognize same-sex marriages. But evidently, the law, the will of Congress, and the will of the people don’t matter anymore in the Obama White House -- if the issue at hand is so-called gay “marriage.”

And now the head of Navy chaplains has issued a memo that would permit Navy chaplains to perform gay “marriage” ceremonies in states that permit so-called same-sex “marriage.”

The problem with that, of course, as Tom McClusky at the Family Research Council pointed out, is that Navy chaplains are federal employees, and Navy chapels are federal facilities. Performing same-sex marriage ceremonies would violate DOMA.

But, as McClusky said, “When you have a president who doesn’t believe the Defense of Marriage Act is a law he needs to follow, it’s no surprise that the military would follow his lead.”

No surprise, but horribly dangerous. So-called gay “marriage” was rejected in all 31 states where the people got to vote! So the gay-rights groups, so far, are carrying the day by doing an end-run around the people, taking their case to the courts, coercing corporations, and now law firms, and finding a willing accomplice to their un-democratic schemes in the White House.

I can’t say this forcefully or clearly enough: Wake up, America! When the executive branch of government rules by fiat and chooses not to enforce the law of the land, the democratic process and the consent of the governed are no longer possible.

Further Reading and Information
Navy Authorizes Chaplains to Perform Same-Sex 'Marriages' in Naval Chapels
Pete Winn | CNS News | May 09, 2011

Firm Hired by GOP Ends Work on Gay Marriage Ban

Greg Bluestein | Associated Press | April 25, 2011

Two-Minute Warning: Demise of DOMA
Chuck Colson | The Colson Center | March 08, 2011


Hi Ana Maria: you stated that Constitution looked at African-Americans as only two-thirds of a person. Of course that was once true - my point was that constitutional amendments have since changed that, fortunately, and have found discriminationbased on race to be unlawful. There is no constitutional protections based upon sexual orientation. You are correct that there is also no constitutional right for men and women to marry (although federal law in the form of the Defense of Marriage Act limits marriage to one man and one woman). You stated that you would like to see statistics that show most people are against gay marriage - most polls show that, but I based my statement on the fact that the people of 37 states have voted (overwhelmingly in most cases) to limit marriage to one man and one woman. You also mentioned that incest is illegal - of course it is - but so is gay marriage currently - but my point is that if Congress or the courts declare that people have a right to marry anyone, might that not invalidate laws against incest, just as it would invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act? Finally, you said that I could not predict that laws such as those in Canada that prevent preachers (or anyone else) from speaking out against homosexuality could be enacted here. Of course I cannot say for sure that will happen, and your example of the Westboro Baptist case is a valid one. However, all I can do is look around at the current atmosphere, in which people who have spoken out against gay marriage have been ostracized, boycotted, and called bigots. Don't assume it could not happen here. The bottom line is, gay people are entitled to constitutional rights just like any other person. So, the argument boils down to this: is there a constitutional right to marry that invalidates laws such as DOMA? I do not think so. Marriage started out as a sacrament of the church, not a legal arrangement. Society, I believe, has a right to recognize that children are better off with a mother and a father who are committed to each other within marriage (as research has proven) and that it is to the good of the community to encourage strong families in this mold. No one is saying that gay people cannot love each other, but I do not see any right to marry in our laws or constitution. All of the arguments made for gay marriage could be made for polygamy, etc. Thank you for your response to my comments.
"the Constitution guaranteed rights to African Americans"
As 2/3 of a white man. So because it granted some rights, it was okay to take away the rest?

"Not only do the majority of Americans think marriage should be reserved to one man and one woman"
I would love to see the stats on that one.

Also, you can't say "look what's happening in Canada, it's coming here soon." That's not an argument. That's your belief in the ability to tell the future. Bob is not mentioning anything about stopping free speech. And I don't think the government is on that track either, especially after the Westboro Baptist Church case was deemed not even a case by the Supreme Court.

"I will only say again that sexual orientation is not a protected status, and there is no constitutional right to marry. If there was,we could not prevent siblings from marrying, parents from marrying children, polygamy - you name it"
1. There is a federal law protecting government workers against discrimination based upon sexual orientation. It does not protect private sector employees, though.
2. We could prevent sibling from marrying because incestual marriage is not legal.
3. You are right. There is not a constitutional right to marry. But how do you extrapolate that into YOUR right to marry a man, but not a man's right to marry another man? If there is not a constitutional right to do something, that should also mean there should not be a BAN on it as well. It should be left up to free choice to decide to marry or not, not the government's choice (especially when backed by religion, which is to be separated).
Sorry, Bob, but the Constitution guaranteed rights to African Americans - it does not recognize gays as minorities, nor does it guarantee anyone the right to marry. Not only do the majority of Americans think marriage should be reserved to one man and one woman, but Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act and President Clinton signed it. The President,by ignoring the law, is saying that the law does not matter. This is a usurpation of the law, and if our President is allowed to ignore one law he does not like, which law or constitutional protection will he choose to ignore next? With this President, I suspect it will be the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If you think it cannot happen here, look to neighboring Canada, where it is illegal to preach that homosexuality is a sin. People who do not like to have preachers saying that should stop and wonder about the shoe being on the other foot and realize we need to protect even speech we do not like. As to making an end run around a law that you think discriminates, I will only say again that sexual orientation is not a protected status, and there is no constitutional right to marry. If there was,we could not prevent siblings from marrying, parents from marrying children, polygamy - you name it.
end-run on democracy
Chuck: I think the reason that they are doing an end run around the popular vote results is that they believe that the Constitution protects minorities from majority votes on issues of rights. For example, in the 1960's the State of California citizens voted by a 67% margin to PRESERVE racial discrimination in housing. Sometimes pure democracy needs additional rules to prevent discrimination.