The First Amendment to the Constitution
makes it clear that Congress (the government) cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion; but that is exactly what the majority opinion in Obergfell v. Hodges does.
Chief Justice Roberts in his dissent wrote “Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberties.”
He points out that as a result of this decision, “Christians can advocate or teach their views of marriage,” but “no freedom to exercise them exists” — a clear violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
He gives us clear warning that if the due process clause of the 14th Amendment can be used to take away this religious liberty, then future court decisions can take away other constitutional liberties. How interesting and dangerous that five justices can use part of the Constitution to violate other parts.
Other justices in their dissents warned of the imprudence of eliminating time honored and historical marital practices.
Isaiah prophesied of a time when standards and behavioral attitudes would be reversed. Isaiah 5:20: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Lee Hall, Weaverville
The Quantum State of Consent
Posted: 10 Feb 2018 04:34 PM PST
56% of younger millennials identify as Christian. 2% as Jewish or Muslim. 1% as Buddhist. And 36% as nothing. That's double the number that made up the "nones" among baby boomers. Being a "none" often means having no sense of purpose, except to seek personal happiness and make the world a better place by recycling, opposing Trump and calling out racism. It also means a moral code based on academic analysis of power relationships between races, genders and sexual orientations.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom," Benjamin Franklin cautioned more simply.
These aren't abstractions. Nor are they measured on some vast scale of civilizations. They define how we live our ordinary lives. They are why this debate is taking place.
Free people consent. But freedom comes from virtue. Freedom without virtue is anarchy. And anarchy ends in brutality and tyranny. That outcome isn't only expressed in riots in the streets. It emerges in smaller and more intimate matters, like the debate over consent.
Freedom of consent is failing. The left wants to replace it with brutality and tyranny. The brutality of online smear campaigns and the tyranny of campus kangaroo courts. But a secular right has no replacement for it either except the more libertarian brutality and tyranny of the individual.
What we forgot is that we don't truly have freedom of consent, until we have purpose.