Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Can the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage be reversed? Should it be?

Published

on

Can the Supreme Courts ruling on same-sex marriage be reversed Should it be

Conservative Christians around the country have been trying to figure out ways to go against the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. We had Kim Davis doing her thing three years ago. We had Judge Roy Moore suspended for trying to stop same-sex marriage license from being given out in Alabama. There were multiple attempts to subvert it until very recently. Today, it appears to be just a normal part of life. Everyone has moved on.

Did America have a change of heart? In some ways, yes. But there’s also a sense of hopelessness over a situation most believe cannot be changed any time soon. Most conservatives and Christians are doing what we can to stay afloat; fighting past battles is very low on the priority list. But there are still occasional attempts similar to Davis’s and Moore’s that pop up from time to time. None of these can work. It’s not possible for them to work based upon the Constitution. There’s nothing that the citizens, Senators, Congressmen, or even a President can do to directly oppose or reverse the decision. There’s only one thing that can be done. The original ruling must be overturned and that’s no easy feat.

To do this would require one of two things: a 3/4th majority of state legislatures amending the Constitution or a powerful ruling by the Supreme Court itself to overturn its previous ruling. The first option is all but impossible on this particular issue given the sentiment of citizens in the nation itself. The second is very difficult given the doctrine of stare decisis, but it’s conceivable under the right circumstances.

First and foremost, the balance of power in the Supreme Court must be changed. It’s easy to argue that appointing Supreme Court Justices is by far, hands down the most important task of the President. It will have bigger and longer-lasting effects on the future of this country than any other action the President is capable of taking. So far, we have one strong originalist and one ideologically-yet-to-be-determined, so it seems things are heading in the right direction. But Chief Justice John Roberts has been acting as a counterbalance so far, meaning President Trump will need to get at least one more originalist on the bench to replace one of the progressive justices in order to have a remote chance of reversing some of the damage done from the bench over the last few decades.

The next thing that would need to happen is that a case must be reviewed by the freshly-conservative Supreme Court that is directly related to the ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges. This, too, is not an easy task and will require the type of planning nobody’s talking about doing right now. As I said before, the issue has been pushed aside. But there’s still chance it could happen. Slim, but present.

In essence, this is a one-time shot. It has to be perfect to have any chance of working. The timing would have to coincide with the next appointment in the Supreme Court. The proper path of venues would need to be chosen ahead of time so that it would have the best chance of reaching the Supreme Court in the appropriate session. Those involved with the case would need to be compelling.

Of course, this raises the question of whether or not it even should be considered. Has the battle been lost permanently? Is it too early to try to reverse a decision that hasn’t even reached a decade since it was made? At this point, it doesn’t seem to be as important to most conservatives as it was just a couple of years ago.

But if one of our goals is to be reestablishing the power of the people and the states while reducing the power of DC, this would be a great issue upon which to make that happen. The proper path here would be to attack the Constitutionality of the Supreme Court’s ability to make the ruling in the first place. This should be a state issue; even proponents of gay marriage who know the law and understand the Constitution are very well aware of this. It’s the Achilles Heel of the ruling. For this reason, it’s no surprise that making this an issue for individual states to decide has been conservative’s argument since before the Supreme Court ruling was even made.

One thing that we must remember regarding whether or not this should even be tried. The Bible is unambiguous. Marriage is between a man and a woman. As I noted before, the financial ramifications of unions should be wide open. If a gay couple wants to get tax breaks, share benefits, or any of the other secular benefits associated with legal marriage, so be it. But the covenant of marriage has always been between a man and a woman millennia before the United States was even a nation. That portion of Biblical worldview means Christians cannot give up on this issue any more than we shouldn’t give up on overturning Roe v. Wade.

Does that mean same-sex marriages should be outlawed? That’s up to the states, and I would assume most states would not outlaw it. But the mandate for adherence by churches, bakers, and anyone else to be forced to participate in same sex marriages must be reversed.

Everything else that is being done in protest of gay marriage is just that: a protest. The path to fight it with a chance of success is extremely narrow. Meanwhile, the battle for hearts and minds may have been lost long ago.

Is the nation ready to revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report editors use ExpressVPN

Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Lew Alessio

    March 9, 2019 at 9:05 pm

    The author seems to avoid the patently obvious problem of what would happen to the, by then, millions of married same sex couples?

    Rights granted are not rescinded.

    I believe the writer is pursuing a fantasy, the absurdity of which is blatant to anyone who passed 5th grade Civics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Speculation about ancient human skull in Israel points to unscientific method of modern science

Published

on

Speculation about ancient human skull in Israel points to unscientific method of modern science

What does an ancient human skull found in a cave in Israel tell us about the past? It all depends on which perspective you take and whether you want to follow sound scientific practices or manipulated conclusions from circular reasoning.

Modern science can give us a tremendous view of the past. With nearly every discovery, we can see God’s work at play in molding the planets and the stars, the oceans and the lands, the people and the other wonderful creatures. Unfortunately, scientists often distort the findings to fit in with their secular worldview. A clear case of this comes to us from a study published four years ago in the scientific journal, Nature, titled Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans, that is still being erroneously taught today.

First, watch the way that it is being reported. Then, let’s discuss the conclusions.

This is an important discovery, one that clearly points to a Biblical worldview of the roots of man from the garden of Eden working its way from what is now Africa into what is now the Middle East. It jibes with the story of the great flood, stories from the life of Adam through Joshua, and a centralized end point of ancient man in the region along the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa up through modern day Turkey.

Of course, that’s not what the scientists doing the research concluded.

“The is the first evidence that shows that, indeed, there was a large wave of African migrants coming out of East Africa and inhabiting the Eastern Mediterranean region,” said Israel Hershkovitz of Tel Aviv University.

One of the biggest problems with modern science is that our society blindly accepts their conclusions. They know, right?

Proper scientific method that we all learn in high school tells us the conclusions of the research are completely unscientific. We know a few things that are truly observable:

  • Humans very likely started in Africa and Neanderthals were in the Middle East.
  • Humans and Neanderthals interbred to form the basis for Europeans. Today, everyone other than purely African people have at least a little Neanderthal DNA.
  • A human skull fragment was found in Israel.

Given this information, it is obtuse to draw the conclusion that this represents a large wave of African migrants inhabiting the Eastern Mediterranean region. One skull fragment does not tell us that there was a large migration. One skull fragment does not tell us that it was a migration at all. Modern science must establish hypotheses based upon observable facts, but it almost always extrapolates too much.

This wouldn’t be a bad thing if it extrapolated based upon the Bible. We are told the general story of everything that happened from creation through the rise of the Greeks within the Old Testament. Every scientific and archaeological discovery in the region supports this general story, but a culture that utilizes far more distant time frames to explain the discoveries has generated the faulty conclusions that scientists present to us today.

The evidence tells two different stories depending on the observer’s worldview. It’s unfortunate that most have pushed aside the obvious and verifiable conclusions in order to perpetuate the paradigm of secularism.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Seriously, ‘eat mor chikin’ at Chick-fil-A

Published

on

Seriously eat mor chikin at Chick-fil-A

A month doesn’t pass without some organization protesting Chick-fil-A to exclude them from participating in some program or even open restaurants in certain locations. This month’s version of Chick-fil-A hate was the last straw for Senator Ted Cruz (and me) as San Antonio’s city council has voted to prevent the fast food chain from operating at the airport.

Let’s call this what it is. Any individual, organization, or company that supports a Biblical worldview or donates to Judeo-Christian causes are considered to be anti-LGBTQ. The only ones who are not labeled as such are those who go out of their way to embrace the LGBTQ community and who promote such things as gay marriage. Faith-based institutions that prioritize modern day’s version of “tolerance” over the Bible’s teachings are often considered to be A-OK to the leaders of the LGBTQ community (as compared to the actual members of the community, most of whom are not involved in pushing the leadership’s agenda beyond believing marriage is not only between a man and a woman).

Chick-fil-A has done nothing to attack the LGBTQ community. They’ve always been stalwart defenders of equal rights and do not deserve the type of treatment they get from people like the six who voted against them in San Antonio’s city council. Yes, they donate to Christian causes. Yes, they let their employees off on Sunday except in those rare circumstances when they’re presence on Sunday is a blessing. Yes, ownership expresses a Biblical worldview. But such things shouldn’t earn them a place on the blacklist.

Nevertheless, they are, and it’s time for patriotic Americans to commit to a sustained campaign in support of this company which has become a symbol as a primary victim of the left’s contempt and discrimination.

Starting tomorrow (can’t start today since it’s Sunday), it’s time to eat out at Chick-fil-A whenever it makes sense. But don’t just do it once. Make it a regular thing. Thinking of other fast food joints for lunch? Whenever possible, don’t. We need to let them and everyone else know that if the left is going to continue to denigrate and block Chick-fil-A, that we’re going to counter their maneuvers by supporting them with our business.

It can’t stop there. We also need to let those who act against Chick-fil-A know, such as those discriminating against religious freedom at the San Antonio city council, that it’s unacceptable. Notice that I’m referring specifically to those who act against Chick-fil-A and not average citizens who protest Chick-fil-A. Protests are protected by the 1st Amendment, so anything beyond respectful discourse should be avoided with the people who have a conscientious difference of opinion. But those who act against Chick-fil-A, especially if they’re part of the government, must be dealt with at the ballot box. A strongly worded letter wouldn’t hurt, either.

Chick-fil-A doesn’t need our help. They’re doing just fine. But that doesn’t mean we can’t expand our support for them anyway. The best way to show or deny support is with our business. Give it to them. Withhold it from those who oppose American freedom.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Did Jesus die exactly 1000 years after King David died?

Published

on

Did Jesus die exactly 1000 years after King David died

History doesn’t tell us exactly when Yeshua was born. Luke tells us that He was about 30 years old when He began His ministry and we know it lasted approximately three and a half years.

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, – Luke 3:23 (KJV)

We know that King David died in 970 AD. The math might start sounding pretty cool at this point, but I’ll elaborate.

Scholars put Yeshua’s birth to likely fall in the 6-4 BC range. Experts place the range of His death (and resurrection) between 30-33 AD as a result of the data that they’ve worked out.

If He did die in 30 AD, that would mean that he died exactly 1000 years after his human ancestor King David.

Some will point out that the calendars were changed, going from 364 to 360 up to 365 at different points within this time range across the various regions, but using the accepted calendars, we can claim that it’s possible for it to be a 1000 year gap. Knowing the amazing order and precision with which our Father has established His creation, it wouldn’t shock me to find out some day that it was precisely 1000 years all the way down to the second.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report