Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court Has Already Ruled on HomosexualMarriage

Posted on March 26, 2013 by GaryDeMar

In the nineteenthcentury, the courts agreed that it was necessary for the State to acknowledgethe biblical requirement of monogamy over against polygamy (many wives).Marriage is by definition a union of one man and one woman.

The courtsjustified their rulings because of moral absolutes found in theChristian religion. What was true of polygamy was equally true of homosexualitysince homosexuality was illegal in all the states, including theMormon-populated state of Utah. The arguments against polygamy applied tohomosexuality with little or no debate.

In The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter-Day Saints v. United States (1890), the court determinedthat “[t]he organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamyis, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit ofChristianity and of the civilization which Christianity had produced in theWestern world.”

If the SupremeCourt rules to strike down the decision of the voters of California to prohibithomosexual marriage, there won’t be anything standing in the way of people whowant to have multiple husbands and wives.

In his dissent inthe Romer v. Evans (1996) decision, JusticeAntonin Scalia wrote the following:

“Has the Courtconcluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a ‘legitimate concernof government,’ and the perceived social harm of homosexuality is not?”

The legal door willbe open for the next minority group to argue for their marriage rights. Don’tbe surprised if NAMBLA (The North American Man/Boy Love Association) becomesmore public with its claim that sex with children is just as valid as same-sexsex and multiple marriage partners.

In Davisv. Beason (1890) the Supreme Court came to a similar conclusionusing a religious argument:

“Bigamy andpolygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. Theyare crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws ofIdaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb thepeace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are morepernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or moredeserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes wouldbe to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenetof religion is to offend the common sense of mankind.”

Without any way toaccount for making laws other than judicial or legislative fiat, anything goesif there is no outside reference point for judgment. What’s legal today could,on the judgment of five of nine justices, be illegal tomorrow.

There has been analmost universal prohibition of homosexuality, condemned by both church andState for thousands of years. “When the first great book on the English Legalsystem was written — [William] Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws ofEngland — its author referred to sodomy as ‘the infamous crime againstnature, committed either with man or beast . . . the very mention of which is adisgrace to human nature.’”[1]

As in England andthe rest of Europe, sodomy was illegal in the thirteen American colonies.Nothing changed with the drafting of the Constitution in 1787. No supposed“right to privacy” was put in the Constitution that legalized the practice.These early Christian politicians, lawyers, and statesmen saw no problem inmixing religion with politics in the case of sodomy.

A ruling by theSupreme Court to legalize homosexual marriage will place a moral burden on 97percent of the population that does not engage in homosexuality. Oncehomosexual marriage is legalized, every American citizen and business will haveto submit to the ruling. And I can assure you that any resistance will be metwith severe retribution by lawyers representing the powerful homosexual lobby.

Read more: