This past week, the Supreme Court handed down two decisions – one of which I predicted in a prior post (although earlier than expected), and the second which should not have been made.
The first decision was the legalization of homosexual marriage. I predicted earlier that this would happen, although I was off by two years at the earliest. What ramifications that this will have is to be seen, and will be highly speculative in nature, so let me take this opportunity to throw in my two cents worth.
I foresee that other groups will want legalization of their bedroom activities. The first of these would be polygamy, which does have an Old Testament history, and is still practiced in other parts of the world. However, I also see that other, more unseemly practices, will also come to the courts for approval, such as sex with minors (I won’t go into the other perversions that come to mind).
There is also the censorship of opinions on this decision. Already, a Pennsylvania paper, the PennLive / Patriot News in Harrisburg will no longer accept opinion editorials or letters to the editor concerning opposition to same-sex marriage. The rationalization is that the paper “would not print racist, sexist or anti-Semitic letters” and thus would include the topic of same-sex marriages in that editorial policy. The politically correct speech police adds another topic to their list…
Here’s a nation, one of the founding pillars was freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And yet, we have imposed upon people restrictions on what they can say, on what they can think. And the media is the largest proponent of this, crucifying people who say things really quite innocently. – Benjamin Carson
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend people. – Brad Thor
Last on my list would be the freedom of our various religious institutions to believe and teach that homosexual unions are a violations of their religion. Anything from hate speech charges to loss of tax-exempt status are possible with this latest decision. For the tax-exempt angle, take this excerpt from and article on American Thinker:
Lost in the celebrations over universal gay marriage, like abortion, being deemed a right found in the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution is the chilling effect the ruling has on religious liberty. In a telling exchange between the Obama administration’s Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito, detailed by Tom Blumer at Newsbusters.com, in which Verrilli admitted that churches could lose their tax exemptions if they refuse to perform gay weddings:
“Justice Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to taxexempt 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?
“General Verrilli: You know, I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but 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.”
So the administration admits that the tax exemption of institutions could be at risk if they refuse to acquiesce in the acceptance of gay marriages. There is no reason to assume that this mandate would not apply to institutions such as the Catholic Church. Those who think this is a red herring forget that this is the administration dragging the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of elderly nuns devoted to helping the aged poor, through the courts, because they won’t comply with Obamacare’s contraception coverage mandate…
Somehow, I think that the government will force (or attempt to make) various churches perform homosexual weddings or they would be charged with a civil offense. I would, however, like to see them try to force an Imam to perform such a service in a mosque…
If you don’t think that the above is possible, consider the second decision that the Supreme Court made this week. This one ignores the law that was passed by Congress & signed by the President, and reinterprets it in a way that boggles the mind. From Townhall.com:
The issue in King v. Burwell is simple: The Affordable Care Act provides subsidies for taxpayers who cannot afford health care, but the law clearly states those subsidies are available only to those who purchase insurance in “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031].” Since its implementation, however, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), following the command of the Obama administration, has been granting subsidies to all citizens who otherwise qualify under the law, even if they live in states that are using the federal health insurance exchange, which is obviously not “an Exchange established by the State.”
This struck many observers as an open-and-shut case: The law strictly confines subsidies to state-established exchanges, but the IRS has been granting subsidies to everyone, in violation of the law.
[Chief Justice] Roberts reasons, “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”
In other words, Roberts and the Court majority decided the law is “ambiguous” because the court needs it to be ambiguous to fit a particular policy goal, not because its meaning actually is indeterminate.
…All that matters is protecting Obamacare no matter the cost, as Justice Antonin Scalia illustrated in his scathing and heroic, albeit ultimately unavailing, dissent: “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”
Welcome to America, where laws do not matter, but opinions and good intents do. And it seems that the opinions that do matter are Progressively Liberal in nature, where the intent overrides any possible negative outcomes or consequences. Here’s a list of “truths’’ that we’re to accept without question unless we want to run afoul of the Thought Police and be denounced as a hater (from National Review):
Exchanges established by the federal government are exchanges established by the state. Rachel Dolezal is black. Iran will honor an agreement not to develop nuclear weapons. ISIS is a JV team. There’s an epidemic of sexual assaults on college campuses. Michael Brown had his hands up and pleaded “don’t shoot.” Caitlyn Jenner is a woman. Obamacare is working. 2+2 doesn’t necessarily equal 4. The polar ice caps are disappearing. The IRS is doing a decent job. The border is secure.We’ve ended two wars responsibly. Hillary Clinton turned over all work-related e-mails. An $18,200,000,000,000 debt can grow without mention. People who burn down buildings and overturn cars aren’t thugs. The OPM hack is manageable. We’ve reset relations with Russia. Entitlement reform can be kicked down the road. We’re more respected around the world.
Fantasy is always preferable to reality. However, reality is a vindictive bitch, and will eventually slap the politicians back into the situations that they want to avoid. Reality is coming, and it won’t be pretty because these bastards will not take any responsibility for the mess they created, and it will be up to the American people to clean it up if that’s even possible.
We had better elect good, responsible people to our government, or I have very serious doubts that this country will survive in any way, shape, or form.