- Obama military strategy too weak for future security, panel reports
- Sen. Tom Coburn vows to slow down budget-busting bills ahead of recess
- Obama fantasizes about more executive power, signs new order on federal contractors
- Clintons call Klein, Halper, Kessler ‘a Hat Trick of despicable actors’: report
- Boehner accuses Obama of ‘legacy of lawlessness’
- Pro-marijuana group claims responsibility for Brooklyn Bridge flag swap
- Young adults shun Obamacare mostly due to cost: survey
- Stabbing attack on transgender girl, 15, was ‘bias motivated,’ police say
- LGBT adults still lean overwhelmingly toward Democratic Party
- Lawmakers rattled by Syria genocide horrors, call on Obama to act
KNIGHT: ‘Black-robed hate group’
The high court gleefully defamed Christians
Question of the Day
By accusing backers of traditional marriage of being motivated only by animus against homosexuals, the U.S. Supreme Court has become the most prominent hate group in the country.
It’s hateful to defame people by falsely accusing them of bigotry. If you want to see how it’s done, check out the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has been defaming Christians for years. Or read Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion in U.S. v. Windsor.
It leaves little room for concluding otherwise that the 342 House members and 85 senators who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, plus President Clinton, who signed it, apparently were full of hate. So, too, is anyone who believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman, including a majority of North Carolina voters last year.
Tens of millions of Americans have voted to strengthen state marriage laws, including 31 constitutional amendments. The hate net is sagging at the seams with all those people in it.
If you think about it, the net includes all major religions, and billions of people around the world who regard marriage as the union of male and female. It would include billions more if you counted all the generations before us. Who knew that marriage rested on so much hate?
Justice Antonin Scalia notes acidly in his dissent that Justice Kennedy’s ruling — which includes a claim of judicial supremacy that Justice Scalia calls “jaw-dropping” — means, “hate your neighbor or come along with us.”
Justice Scalia adds that for “supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence — indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history,” traditionalist Americans have been declared by the court to be “enemies of the human race.”
In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy writes of the Defense of Marriage Act, “no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” homosexual couples.
In other words, the main purpose of the act is to demean homosexuals, not legally protect a unique, positive institution created by God and older than any government.
The court didn’t quite declare same-sex “marriage” as a constitutional right, but it created the framework to accomplish that end. “By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency,” Justice Scalia warns, “the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”
In his own dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. writes that accepting the plaintiffs’ key argument “would cast all those who cling to traditional beliefs about the nature of marriage in the role of bigots or superstitious fools.”
Proponents apparently knew the fix was in. The American Civil Liberties Union ran a full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal the next day, proclaiming jihad against the 36 states that aren’t in the “freedom to marry party.” As for the freedom of millions who disagree? Ah, well.
The jihad won’t stop with the same-sex counterfeit. If sexual complementarity is no longer a valid requirement, why should marriage be limited to two people?
Justice Kennedy has emerged as the most powerful man in America when it comes to advancing the homosexual agenda and uprooting Judeo-Christian sexual morality. In 1996, he wrote the Romer v. Evans ruling that struck down Colorado’s voter-approved Amendment Two, which barred inclusion of the amorphous “sexual orientation” in state and local statutes. Clear-headed Coloradans had seen how such a term could be abused to distort civil rights and tried to head it off.
They ran into the buzz saw of a liberal judiciary, topped by Justice Kennedy’s unctuous ruling accusing them of bigotry.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Robert Knight is senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for The Washington Times.
TWT Video Picks
Both parties recognize the Democrats' scam
Get Breaking Alerts
- Inside the Ring: Israel surprised by Hamas tunnel network
- Army's 3-D printed bombs to create 'a whole new universe' of lethal capabilities
- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- CRUZ: A tale of two hospitals: One in Israel, one in Gaza
- GOP leaders delay border bill, leave Obama in control
- Israel surprised by Hamas tunnel network
- Report: 40% of weapons sent to Afghanistan are unaccounted for
- CIA admits improperly hacking Senate computers in search of Bush-era information
- Colorado poll shows women tuning out Democrats' 'war on women' strategy
- 3 African leaders cancel trip to U.S. over Ebola outbreak; Obama still plans summit