Conservative Musings

Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details

Showing posts with label DOMA. Show all posts

Friday, October 30, 2015

Of Course Hillary Lied. It Is Easier For Her Than Telling The Truth

Hillary Lied About DOMA On Rachel Maddow Show

Bill and Hillary Clinton in Iowa on Oct. 24. (Getty Images)

By Dick Morris | Thursday, 29 Oct 2015 04:18 PM

On MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, Hillary Clinton said that it was the threat of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that led her husband President Bill Clinton to sign the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996.

This statement is totally untrue. I was there and there was never any discussion of a constitutional amendment on the subject.

The president discussed DOMA with his staff and advisers at a meeting in June of 1996. I had conducted a survey that showed that likely voters opposed legalizing gay marriage and even opposed legalizing civil unions. Asked if one state should be required to recognize a gay marriage or civil union recognized by another state, they were even more overwhelmingly opposed.

The Clinton campaign and administration had been searching for an issue to throw a bone to social conservatives to soften their opposition to the president's re-election. His decision to sign DOMA was part of that effort. There was never any indication of a potential constitutional amendment on the horizon.

At the June meeting, one of the president's staff said that he might need some time to "prepare" some other staff members who might be opposed to the president's action in signing DOMA. President Clinton got red in the face and, gesticulating forcefully, said "I've created more than ten million new jobs and maybe they need to go out and take some of them."

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Where Is The Condemnation Of Sanctuary Cities, Marijuana States Or Gavin Newsom Who Flaunt The Law? Seems Those Who Espouse "Nation Of Laws" Apply Criteria Very Selectively.

SAME-SEX 'MARRIAGE’ STARTED WITH LAWBREAKING

Kim Davis in jail, while Gavin Newsom runs for California governor

Published: 5 days ago

LEO HOHMANN

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis

Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, sits in a jail cell for refusing to issue same-sex “marriage” licenses.

She “broke the law,” say her critics. She disobeyed “the law of the land.”

But as more than one conservative thinker has pointed out, the redefinition of marriage began 11 years ago with another famous lawbreaker.

It was in 2004 when then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom flaunted the law of the land by ordering those very marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples.

While Davis is in jail, Newsom, now serving as lieutenant governor of California, is running for governor of his state.

“It’s interesting that gay activists who praised SF Mayor Gavin Newsom for illegally issuing marriage licenses now vilify Kim Davis,” Tweeted author Michael Brown.

Brown expanded on the comparison in an op-ed Friday for Charisma magazine.

“When Gavin Newsom refused to submit to the law in 2004, he was a hero,” writes Brown. “When Kim Davis refuses to submit to the law, she is a bigot and a monster. (And make no mistake about it: His actions were far more flamboyant and aggressive than hers, and whereas as she is a self-professed ‘very private person’ who does not want the spotlight to the point of being overwhelmed and in tears because of the national attention, Newsom actively sought it out.)”

Brown also highlights the fact that Newsom, who was sworn in as mayor under national and state laws that recognized marriage as the union of one man and one woman, violated his oath of office to uphold that law. The exact opposite was true of Davis. When she was sworn in, Kentucky did not recognize same-sex “marriage.”

The comparisons about lawbreaking don’t end there, says Brown, who holds a Ph.D. from New York University in Near Eastern Languages and Literature and authored several books, the latest of which takes on the gay rights movement under the title “Outlasting the Gay Revolution: 8 Principles for Long Term Cultural Change.”

“Let’s recall that just last year, Jack Conway, Kentucky’s attorney general, refused to defend the state’s ban on same-sex ‘marriage,’ despite his oath of office, explaining that, ‘Once I reached the conclusion that the law was discriminatory, I could no longer defend it. At that point, being true to myself became more important than the political considerations.’”

“Where was the national condemnation of Conway?” Brown asks. “And where was the national condemnation of then-Attorney General Eric Holder when he instructed attorneys general nationwide that they were not obligated to defend state laws – meaning, specifically, bans on same-sex ‘marriage’ – if they found them to be discriminatory?”

Attorney David French, writing in National Review, sees the comparisons and contrasts in the actions as “competing revolutionary acts.”

Schlafly weighs in on Davis controversy

If the left is upset with Davis, she is a problem of their own making, said Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum and author of “Who Killed the American Family?”

“It’s shocking the way the left didn’t react when Obama and his attorneys general didn’t obey the law. And so when they talk about the rule of law, they’re very choosy, they’re very selective about which ones they’re going to obey and which ones they’re going to fight against,” Schlafly told WND.

“They have several hundred sanctuary cities that are in open defiance of the law, and that does not seem to bother them,” Schlafly added. “And in the marriage issues, some of them issued gay marriage licenses when it was clearly against the law, so the whole issue is a one-way street for the left.”

So Davis isn’t the only revolutionary or “anarchist,” as the left likes to call her.

“In fact, she didn’t fire the first revolutionary shot,” Brown says. “That distinction belongs to a Supreme Court that concocted out of whole cloth a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, using legal ‘reasoning’ that reads more like a religious tract than a court opinion.”

Is there a higher law?

While Conway attributed his law-breaking action to a higher sense of morality – himself – a noted conservative legal scholar says Davis also cites a higher authority, only hers is not self-invented.

Herb Titus, a longtime constitutional lawyer and former dean of the Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, said he doesn’t see Davis as breaking the “law of the land.”

“She’s not acting lawlessly,” Titus said. “And it’s not just a matter of her individual Christian conscience. It has to do with her understanding of her duty as a lower civil magistrate.”

Under Romans 13:4, Titus said Davis realizes that she holds her authority under God, that she’s a minister of God who is held to a higher moral standard of truth and justice than whatever the current political wind dictates.

“Even though she’s elected by the people, she’s to serve the people under God, and that’s what she’s doing. It’s not a personal matter, although it is quite personal,” Titus told WND. “It has to do with her civil duty as an office holder.

“Now Mr. Newsom, he doesn’t hold the same view as a civil officer. He just did what he wanted to do, and he’s not under any constraint other than the political. Kim Davis is under constraint to the truth under the law of God.”

Titus put it this way: If a soldier in the Army is ordered to kill an innocent civilian, he can’t just say, “I was doing what I was told.”

Historical record bears out who man is accountable to

In fact, that was the main argument employed by the Nazi officers at Nuremburg, and it wasn’t accepted by the international tribunal.

“That didn’t work in Germany, nor did it work for the people who were working for Richard Nixon, so these people who criticize Kim Davis for acting lawlessly, not only are they hypocritical, they are just plain wrong,” Titus said. “And just because they don’t believe there is a higher law doesn’t mean there is not one. You can’t just discard God’s law; it doesn’t work that way.

“That’s why it is so import here to see that Kim Davis is acting lawfully to serve the public under the oath of her office, not bound by someone else’s opinion just because they hold a higher office,” he continued. “In fact, it’s the duty of the lower magistrate to tell the holder of the higher office that they should stop violating the law. Her faith in Christ is what told her to do it.”

Titus cited Roman 13:1-4, in which the Apostle Paul laid out the Judeo-Christian view on civil authority.

“These people don’t have any comprehension of this because they have an entirely different worldview, an atheistic worldview that makes man the measure of all things. If you’re in a position of power, you can justify anything you want; any justification is fine. But if you’re in a position of weakness or less power, there would be no way you can stand against the attorney general or the judge, except that she knows her authority comes from God.”

To the atheist, it’s all about which human power structure is greatest, with no check on that power, Titus said.

‘Not about marriage’

In the end, it’s not about marriage, he said.

“Of course, they feel they’re entitled to get any person they want who is a Christian in a position to give them a license. They want that person to do it. So they really are not interested in getting married. They’re interested in making a political statement and exercising the new-found power they now have because the courts are backing them up,” Titus said. “To them, it’s a raw power play.”

Joseph Backholm of the Family Policy Institute also noted the tidal wave of change in attitude that has come across those leftists who are ridiculing Davis.

“Suddenly, the progressives are organizing lectures to remind the world that our system of government is predicated on our laws being enforced equitably, regardless of the preferences of the individuals,” he wrote on the FPI website. “Even Hillary Clinton got into the act this week tweeting that, ‘Marriage equality is the law of the land. Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law – end of story.’”

He listed the following historical ironies with regard to the movement toward same-sex “marriage”:

Once President Obama finished his evolution on marriage, the U.S. Department of Justice, whose job it is to defend the laws of the United States in court, refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder then declared that state attorneys general are not required to defend constitutional amendments in their states if they believe them to be “discriminatory.”
It is the job of an attorney general to defend state laws in court. However, the attorneys general in Oregon, Nevada, California, Illinois, Virginia and Pennsylvania all refused to defend constitutional amendments in their states defining marriage as a man/woman relationship.
In 2013, D. Bruce Haines, an official in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, started issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses when the law did not permit it.
In 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco and Mayor John West of New Paltz, New York, both directed marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples long before marriage had been redefined in their states.

“Apparently the concern with strict adherence to marriage laws is a new passion of progressives,” Backholm concluded.

“We’ve progressed,” they insist. “The law has changed to be good so we care about the rule of law now.”

‘Don’t look for evidence’

Backholm and Brown were not the only ones to notice the double standard of the left.

Sean Davis of online publication the Federalist also took note in a Sept. 3 commentary.

“Davis’ arrest was met with cheers by same-sex marriage advocates who for some reason did not demand imprisonment of officials who lawlessly issued gay marriage licenses in clear contravention of state and federal laws,” Davis wrote.

“If you look for evidence of gay rights advocates chastising Newsom for his blatant lawlessness, you won’t find it. Because it doesn’t exist,” he continued. “You similarly won’t find any evidence of these principled law enforcement purists chastising California state officials for refusing to enforce or defend the Prop 8 ballot initiative in California, which was passed overwhelmingly by California voters.

“And don’t you dare look for evidence of high-minded progressives demanding prison sentences for the Washington, D.C., bureaucrats who openly defied federal court orders to issue concealed carry permits in the nation’s capital. Nope. Instead of enforcing the law as handed down in multiple Supreme Court cases, D.C. officials kept manufacturing new reasons to justify their refusal to comply with federal gun laws.”

“Deputies issue ‘same-sex marriage’ license”

“Huckabee: ‘FreeKimDavisNow.com’”

Click here for reuse options!

Saturday, July 18, 2015

PC Movement Is Anti-Liberty And Will Cause Crisis in The Future

The future costs of politically correct cultism

Posted on July 14, 2015 by Brandon Smith crackedflag

I rarely touch on the subject of political correctness as a focus in my writings, partially because the entire issue is so awash in pundits on either side that the scrambling clatter of voices tends to drown out the liberty movement perspective. Also, I don’t really see PC cultism as separate from the problems I am always battling against: collectivism and the erasure of the individual in the name of pleasing society. Political correctness is nothing more than a tool that collectivists and statists exploit in order to better achieve their endgame, which is conning the masses into believing that the group mind is real and that the individual mind is fiction.

Last year, I covered the PC issue in my article “The twisted motives behind political correctness.” I believe I analyzed the bulk of the issue extensively. However, the times are changing at a pace that boggles the mind; and this is by design. So, it may be necessary to square off against this monstrosity once again.

In order to better examine the true insanity of what many people now term “social justice warriors,” I must study a few aspects separately. First, let’s take a brief look at the mindset of your average social justice circus clown so that we might better understand what makes him/her/it tick.

Rebel without a legitimate cause

I spent several years (up until 2004, when I woke up from the false paradigm madness) as a Democrat. And before anyone judges that particular decision, I would suggest they keep in mind the outright fascist brothel for the military-industrial complex the Republican Party had become at that point and remains to this day. Almost every stepping stone that Barack Obama is using today to eradicate the Constitution was set in place by the Bush dynasty, including the Authorization Of Military Force, which was the foundation for the National Defence Authorization Act and the legal precedence for indefinite detention without trial of any person (including an American citizen) accused of terrorism by the president of the U.S., as well as the use of assassination by executive order.

But, hell, these are real issues — issues that many of my fellow Democrats at the time claimed they actually cared about. Today, though, liberal concerns about unconstitutional actions by the federal government have all but vanished. Today, the left fights the good fight against flags on the hoods of cars from long-canceled television shows and battles tooth and nail for the “right” of boys wearing wigs and skirts to use the girl’s bathroom. Today, the left even fights to remove the words “boy” and “girl” from our vocabulary. Yes, such noble pursuits as these will surely be remembered as a pinnacle in the annals of societal reform.

Maybe I realize the ideological goals of the social justice machine are meaningless on a surface level; and maybe you realize this, too. But these people live in their own little universe, which doesn’t extend far beyond the borders of their college campuses, the various Web forums they have hijacked and a trendy Marxist wine-and-swinger party here and there in New York or Hollywood. They actually think that they are on some great social crusade on par with the civil rights movements of the mid-1900s. They think they are the next Martin Luther King Jr. or the next Gandhi. The underlying banality and pointlessness of their cause completely escapes them. The PC cult is, in many respects, the antithesis of the liberty movement. We fight legitimate threats against legitimate freedoms; they fight mostly imaginary threats and seek to eradicate freedoms.

Don’t get me wrong; sometimes our concerns do align. For instance, liberty proponents fight back against the militarization of police just as avidly as leftists do, if not more so. But our movements handle the problem in very different ways. Look at Ferguson, Missouri, where anyone with any sense should be able to admit that the government response to protests was absolutely a step toward tyranny, ignoring violent looters while attacking peaceful activists. Leftists and PC cultists decided to follow the Saul Alinsky/communist playbook, busing in provocateurs from Chicago to further loot and burn down businesses even if they belonged to ethnic minorities. In the meantime, the liberty movement and Oath Keepers sent armed and trained men to defend those businesses regardless of who owned them and defied police and federal agents who tried to stop them.

The left gave the police and government a rationale for being draconian, while we removed the need for police and government entirely by providing security for the neighborhood (killing two birds with one stone). Either their methods are purely ignorant and do not work, or their methods are meant to achieve the opposite of their claims. In the end, the PC movement only serves establishment goals toward a fully collectivist and centralized society.

Your average PC drone does not understand the grander plan at work, nor does he want to. All he cares about is that he has found a “purpose” — a fabricated purpose as a useful idiot for power brokers, but a purpose nonetheless.

People must be forced to bake gay cakes

I personally do not care if two people of the same gender want to be in a relationship, but I do find the issue of gay marriage (and marriage in general) a rather odd conflict that misses the whole point. Marriage has been and always will be a religious institution, not federal; and I find government involvement in this institution to be rather despicable. When the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage came down, I felt a little sorry for all the joyfully hopping homosexuals on the marbled steps of the hallowed building, primarily because they essentially were fighting for the state to provide recognition and legitimacy for their relationships. Frankly, who gives a rip what the state has to say in terms of your relationships or mine? The state is an arbitrary edifice, a facade wielding illusory power. If a relationship is based on true and enduring connection, then that is a marriage of sorts, whether the Supreme Court says so or not.

The only advantage to solidifying gay marriage in the eyes of the state is the advantage of being able to then use the state as an attack dog in order to force religious institutions to accept the status of gays in the same way the government does. And unfortunately, this is exactly what the PC cult is doing.

Should an individual, organization or business be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Should the state be allowed to force people into servitude to one group or another even if it is against their core values?

PC champions desperately try to make these questions a matter of “discrimination” alone. But they are more about personal rights and property and less about “hate speech.” Under natural law, as well as under the constitution, an individual has every right to refuse association with any other person for any reason. If I do not like you, the government does not have the authority to force me to be around you or to work for you. But this line has been consistently blurred over the years. As I’m sure most readers are familiar, the issue of gay cakes seems to arise over and over, as in cases in Colorado and Oregon in which religiously oriented business owners were punished for refusing to provide service for gay customers.

Punishments have included crippling fines designed to put store owners out of business and have even included gag orders restricting the freedom of businesses to continue speaking out against the orientation of customers they have refused.

In order to validate such actions, leftists will invariably bring up segregation as a backdrop for the gay cake debate. “What if the customers were black,” they ask. “Is it OK for a business to be whites only?”

My response? First, to be clear, I am talking specifically about private individuals and businesses, not public institutions as in the argument explored during Brown v. Board of Education. Private and public spaces are different issues with different nuances. I personally believe it is ignorant to judge someone solely on the color of his skin, and sexual orientation is not necessarily an issue to me. But it is equally ignorant for someone to think that the state exists to protect his feelings from being hurt. I’m sorry, but discrimination is a fact of life and always will be as long as individualism exists. The PC cultists don’t just want government recognition of their status; they want to homogenize individualism, erase it and force the rest of us to vehemently approve of that status without question. This is unacceptable.

Your feelings do not matter. They are not superior in importance to the fundamental freedom of each individual to choose his associations.

If a business refuses to serve blacks, or gays, or Tibetans, then, hey, it probably just lost a lot of potential profit. But that should absolutely be the business’s choice and not up to government to dictate. And in the case of “gay discrimination,” I think it is clear that the PC crowd is using the newfound legal victim group status of gays as a weapon to attack religiously based organizations. Make no mistake, this will not end with gay cakes. It is only a matter of time before pressure is brought to bear against churches as well for “discrimination.” And at the very least, I foresee many churches abandoning their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status.

If a group wants fair treatment in this world, that is one thing. I believe a gay person has every right to open his own bakery and bake gay marriage cakes to his little heart’s content. I believe a black person has every right to dislike white people, as some do, and refuse to associate with them or serve them if that’s what he/she wants. I also believe that under natural and constitutional law, a religious business owner is an independent and free individual with the right to choose who he will work for or accept money from. If he finds a customer’s behavior to be against his principles, he should not be forced to serve that person, their feelings be damned.

This is fair.

What is not fair is the use of government by some to gain an advantage over others based on the legal illusion of victim group status. PC cultists want us to think that choice of association is immoral and damaging to the group. I have to say I find them to be far more intolerant and dangerous than the people they claim to be fighting against, and this attitude is quickly devolving into full bore tyranny under the guise of “humanitarianism.”

Gender bending does not make you special

A man shaves his head and eyebrows, straps a plastic bottle to his face, and has his feet surgically modified to resemble flippers: Does this make him a dolphin, and should he be given victim group status as trans-species? I’m going to be brief here because I covered this issue in a previous article, but let’s lay everything on the table, as it were.

PC cultists are clamoring to redefine the fact of gender as an “undefinable” and even discriminatory social perception. No one, no matter how dedicated, will ever be able to redefine gender, unless they have the ability to change their very chromosomes. Nature defines gender, not man; and a man who undergoes numerous surgeries and body-changing steroid treatments will always have the genetics of a man even if he gives the appearance of a woman. Take away the drugs, and no amount of make-up will hide the chest hair growth and deepening voice.

This might be deemed a “narrow” view of gender, and I don’t care. Nature’s view of gender is the only one that counts. Psychological orientations are irrelevant to biological definitions. Are you a man trapped in a woman’s body? Irrelevant. A woman trapped in a man’s body? Doesn’t matter. If we are talking about legal bearings, then biological definitions are the only scale that makes sense. I realize that gender bending is very trendy right now, and Hollywood sure seems to want everyone to jump on that freaky disco bandwagon, but there is no such thing as gender-neutral people. They are not a group, let alone a victim group. There are men, and there are women; these are the only gender groups that count. Whether they would like to be the opposite does not change the inherent genetic definition. Period. To make such foolishness into an ideology is to attempt to bewilder man’s relationship to nature, and this will only lead to disaster.

There is no such thing as ‘white privilege’

A person determines his success in life by his character and his choices. Color does not define success, as there are many people of every color who are indeed successful. Do you have to work harder to gain success because you are brown, or black, or neon green? I’ve seen no concrete evidence that this is the case. I know that people who identify as “white” are still around 70 of the American population, thus there are more white people in successful positions due to sheer numbers.

I know that I personally grew up in a low-wage household and had little to no financial help as I entered the working world. Everything I have accomplished in my life to this point was done alongside people of color, some of whom had far more advantages than I did. I cannot speak for other people’s experiences, but I can say that being white was never more important in my life than being stubborn and dedicated.

I also find it a little absurd that most PC cultists who harp about so-called white privilege are often white themselves and haven’t the slightest experience or insight on what it is to be a person of color anyway. White privilege seems to be the PC cult’s answer to the argument that racism is a universal construct. Only whites can be racist, they claim, because only whites benefit from racism. I defy these jokers to show any tangible proof that an individual white person has more of a chance at success than a person of color due to predominant racism. Or are we just supposed to have blind faith in the high priests of PC academia and their morally relative roots?

The cost of social Marxism

Marxism (collectivism) uses many vehicles or Trojan horses to gain access to political and cultural spaces. Once present, it gestates like cancer. Younger generations are highly susceptible to social trends and are often easily manipulated by popular culture and academic authority, which is why we are seeing PC cultism explode with the millennials and post-millennials. In my brief participation on the left side of the false paradigm, political correctness was only beginning to take hold. A decade later, we have a bewildering manure storm on our hands. The result is a vast division within American society that cannot be mended. Those of us on the side of liberty are so different in our philosophies and solutions to social Marxists that the whole carnival can end only one way: a fight. And perhaps this is exactly what the elites want: left against right, black against white, gay against religious and straight, etc. As long as the PC movement continues to do the bidding of power brokers in their efforts toward the destruction of individual liberty, I see no other alternative but utter conflict.

–Brandon Smith

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Supreme Court Changed Its Position On "Marriage". Why Would They Do That?

AMERICA 'PUNKED' ON 'GAY MARRIAGE'

Supreme Court had to ignore its own words to reach conclusion

Published: 11 hours ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.png
Text smaller
Text bigger

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/09/SUPREME-COURT.jpg

A well-known pastor says America was “punked” on homosexual “marriage,” and he is trying to rally resistance to the Supreme Court with what he believes is a “smoking gun.”

Carl Gallups, author of “Final Warning: Understanding the Trumpet Days of Revelation,” argues the Supreme Court ruled only two years ago the right to define marriage belonged exclusively to the states.

Then suddenly this year the justices found that contention was wrong – that the states did not have that right. Instead, the justices ruled 5-4 that the federal government has the right to redefine marriage – even to the point of throwing out the votes of millions of Americans.

Gallups says this “nefarious” legal reasoning opens the door for legislative action by the Republican-controlled Congress.

He said it was the case of United States v. Windsor in 2013 that overturned the Defense of Marriage Act.

There the issue was that the federal law provided that marriage was between a man and a woman, but in New York state, there was a demand to include same-sex duos in that designation. Thus, the Supreme Court threw out the federal law.

It found “the responsibility of the states for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the state’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people.”

But now, Gallups notes, the Supreme Court is saying in 2015′s Obergefell v. Hodges case that homosexuals have an inherent “right” to marry and the state does not have the right to determine “domestic relations.”

Gallups says he finds it odd these same justices apparently didn’t notice this only two years ago.

Gallups, a former law enforcement officer, told WND, “The U.S. v. Windsor case is evidence to many who are examining the redefinition of marriage in America that there is a potentially nefarious agenda afoot with this entire issue. How can it be that the same five justices, who ruled against DOMA on the basis that the definition of ‘domestic relations’ belonged to the states alone, could just two years later could completely reverse their stance and with the gay marriage ruling declare that the definition of marriage was entirely a federal matter? In a sane world – it cannot be.

“These five justices declared in the DOMA ruling that to take the definition of marriage out of the states’ hands would be a ‘federal intrusion on state power’ and that it would be, ‘a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.’”

He said, “The matter is clear. The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling, in the words of SCOTUS itself, was unconstitutional and therefore – illegal.”

Some legal experts agree the Supreme Court is directly contradicting its reasoning from the relatively recent time frame of only two years ago.

Douglas Wardlow, legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, told WND the court’s recent imposition of “gay marriage” is “fundamentally lawless, not based on sound reasoning and isn’t good jurisprudence.”

Wardlow, who possesses a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and was admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court as well as the bar of the District of Columbia and Minnesota, argues the court was motivated by “the end they wanted to reach and not by sound reasoning.”

He observes, “The reasoning in the Obergefell decision says the court can determine new standards of liberty to overturn precedent and legal restrictions.”

The court’s decision, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, boasts, “Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.”

Wardlow argues Obergefell was grounded in the supposed constitutional right to express one’s identity and be granted a sense of dignity.

“Apparently, the court is the body that can define what forms of identity are protected by Constitution,” he said.

But Wardlow warns the decision goes beyond even just redefining a core institution like marriage. Observing how easily the court was able to contradict its own reasoning in the two years from United States v. Windsor to Obergefell v. Hodges, Wardlow says the court has done nothing less than redefine liberty itself and undermine the rule of law.

“Liberty is now defined as the expression of identity, instead of liberty meaning freedom from forms of government control. Fundamental liberties are no longer defined by history or the traditions of the nation but are free floating concepts, concepts that the court can assess for itself,” he said.

Wardlow says such an approach to jurisprudence could prove dangerous.

“Just think of a fundamental right and the Supreme Court could expand it, redefine it, or shrink it. The reasoning of the decision fundamentally undermines the rule of law because rule of law depends on constancy of the law. Now, it becomes difficult for people to plan their behavior and you move toward a lawless state.”

Paul Kengor, a professor and author of “Takedown: How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage,” argues Kennedy’s “commitment to a relativistic, individualistic view of everything from marriage to life to existence to meaning itself ultimately won out.”

Kengor says Kennedy’s legal reasoning has put almost everything in the law up for grabs, “and that’s no exaggeration.”

“Really, if you want to understand what Justice Kennedy did in the gay-marriage decision, simply look at his ‘reasoning’ in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that reaffirmed Roe in all 50 states. Kennedy wrote then: ‘At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.’”

He said, “That explains Kennedy’s willingness to redefine marriage. If Anthony Kennedy interprets liberty in America to mean that every American possesses his or her own right to define one’s own singular concept of existence, meaning, the universe, and life itself, then why can’t Americans come up with their definitions of marriage? Really, redefining marriage is small potatoes after all that.”

Wardlow says the rationale used to impose homosexual marriage “opens the door to a lot of different problems” because now the law seems to state, “whatever you want the world to look like, you can make it look like that.”

Bemoaning how “a concept ultimately destructive of social order” is now at the heart of constitutional law, Wardlow says the only way the decision is likely to be reversed is with better justices.

He argues, “It’s even difficult to make arguments to federal courts when the decision isn’t based on logic or reason or precedent, which are things lawyers traditionally use. It appears the governing standards are lawless themselves.”

Yet Gallups argues the answer is “reining in a runaway federal court through congressional action.”

He blasts Republican presidential candidates who are unwilling to take action to defend traditional marriage.

“What is particularly disturbing to many, is that the vast majority of the so-called ‘conservative’ Republican candidates running for president have declared that they would not seek a constitutional amendment to properly define marriage and nullify the SCOTUS decision. Their paraphrased consensus declaration is, ‘The law is the law. SCOTUS has settled the issue.’

“Hogwash! The SCOTUS also ‘settled’ the issue in Dred Scott, and it also ‘settled’ the issue in Roe v. Wade. Now, years later, we know the horrific consequences of both of these ‘settled law’ cases. To make matters worse, it seems that Congress is not going to intervene in this legal travesty as well. One has to wonder if Congress even knows about the legally inconsistent SCOTUS rulings that took place only two years apart. Where is the mainstream media on this travesty of constitutional law?”

See Gallups’ report:

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/america-punked-on-gay-marriage/#SPBXERvXBWm0TAMJ.99Sup