Jun 28, 2015

Obergefell: U.S. Commands Your Symbolic and Material Support for Homosexuality

You Must Provide "Symbolic Recognition" and "Material Benefits" to Homosexual Unions
Under Obergefell v. Hodges, you and every other member of American society must support homosexual unions. Justice Kennedy explains what the U.S. government now requires of its subjects, what no popular referendum or democratic legislation can now change:
For that reason [because of the importance of marriage], just as a couple vows to support each other, so does society pledge to support the couple, offering symbolic recognition and material benefits to protect and nourish the union. Id. at 16.
To be part of American society, you need not pledge allegiance to the flag. But you must now "pledge to support the [homosexual] couple." You can publicly blaspheme God and Christ. But you must give homosexual unions "symbolic recognition." Christian localities cannot teach about God or prayer in the public schools they pay for. But you shall provide homosexual union with "material benefits." Being American binds you to "protect and nourish" homosexual unions. To the extent you want to refuse, you must also withdraw from American society. 

This is why it is risible when Kennedy elsewhere claims:
it is appropriate to observe these cases involve only the rights of two consenting adults whose marriages would pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties. Id. at 27.
By his own admission, this case also involves the rights and coercion of all Americans. For example, Christians once were free to choose whether to offer "symbolic recognition and material benefits" to what they regard as sin. Christians Americans are harmed by Obergefell because they are coerced to pledge symbolic and material support to homosexual unions. Homosexuals are harmed by this decision because they are encouraged to engage in behavior that destroys their dignity and bodies:
Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ... 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 
So, why has the Supreme Court compelled Americans to support homosexual unions? Liberty, of course. Why are you, Christians, forced to be accessories to homosexual relationships?  Because of the right to define your personal identity, naturally. Justice Kennedy only binds in order to make you free. He will shape you to become what you are.
"[t]he Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." Id. at 1. 
Now, under Obergefell, the Kennedy Constitution protects homosexuals who want to express their identity by availing themselves of the benefits that a once free people ordained for conjugal, male/female marriage alone. But if you want to express your identity as a Christian by socially withholding symbolic and material support for homosexuality, the U.S. Constitution does not protect your right. You are compelled by American liberty. You must relinquish your false Christian identity to fit into your true public identity as a self-defining American individual.

American liberty -- a term now resembling Dutch treat, Greek gift, and French leave -- does not mean that society leaves American individuals free. "American liberty" means compulsion symbolically to endorse and materially to support the moral and spiritual vision of the Justices of the Supreme Court. There are no democratic checks on this liberty; you are perfectly at liberty to obey.

So hear the Vox Kenne-Dei, serf of liberty. As an American, morality is no longer a matter for your conscience; you are commanded to recognize that "homosexuals have dignity in their own distinct identity." Id. at 7. You will be forced to join the "greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons." Id.  You must agree that homosexuality is "a normal expression of human sexuality." Id. at 8. And, just so you Christians understand, this is not just a decision about man-made law; it is intended to be a fundamental proclamation about human nature in both its ordinary psychological and transcendent spiritual dimensions. Listen to these oracles of the inner nature of marriage and man:
... immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is [homosexuals'] only real path to this profound commitment. Id. at 4.
The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.  Id. at 13. 
You didn't think that human "spirituality" was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court? You underestimate the power and insight of our spiritual lords and mistresses! Obergefell is not a mere interpretation of a human document. It reflects the Justices' insight even into the transcendent:
Same-sex couples, too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning. Id. at 17. 
Peon, listen and learn the true path to transcendent higher meaning.


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. Sadly, views such as these are an example of why churches are steadily declining in America. The animosity toward the civil right to marry certainly comes across in these biased views. Just as the Civil Rights Act was seen by many Christians as wrong, allowing citizens of color to have rights, so are members of the Christian community who are against civil rights for gay Americans. The church cannot hang on to discrimination of gays and call it their First Amendment right.

  4. So while championing the First Amendment right of freedom of religion, my comments will be only visible after approval? What about my freedom of speech?

  5. Thanks for the comment, Anonymous!

    It seems that the churches declining in numbers (is this is what you mean by "declining") are those who have wrongly adopted the view that marriage is a "civil" "right."

    In addition, your analogizing sexual identity and gender choice with skin color is logically inappropriate.

    Yet, the bottom line is that Church's mission is to proclaim the truth, regardless of what that means for "numbers" or First Amendment "rights." So the question isn't whether the Church is behind the times or declining or cool or discriminatory, it's whether she is telling the truth.