Post # 184

As I recall no one has ever claimed that I’m sharper than a tack.  Often times it takes quite a while for the substance of a fact to register in my head.


I have been trying to understand two recent, U.S Supreme Court Cases, on California’s Prop 8, and the DOMA issue.  I recognize that some people, called attorneys, get paid lots of money to learn bunches of words, that when used tell you nothing, it’s what I call mumbo jumbo. When attorney’s talk,  all the other attorneys nod their heads, NOT necessarily in agreement with the argument, but rather they nod in agreement  that enough words were used, to muddy any coherent understanding.

I  understand the concept of Equal Protection.  California Prop 8, as a state constitutional amendment, which vacated equal protection would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s, Equal Protection.  I also understand, sort of, the vacating of a portion of the Federal DOMA law (Defense of Marriage Act), which recognized heterosexual marriage, only, as marriage under federal law, as a breach of equal of protection, I guess, …….maybe.  I mostly understand that “todays intent” of the decisions, was to protect persons from discrimination.

The thumbnail sketch, in my simple mind of these two cases can be summarized as; 1st, the court struck down a states right define marriage, and 2nd, the court determined that states have a right to define marriage, but the federal government does not.  Think about it, as long a state EXPANDS the definition of marriage, its OK, but to limited the definition, it is not OK.  So, if YOU want to marry a goat, it’s ok.  But, it you restrict marriage to two goats, it’s bad! ( I used goat, because some wives think they actually married an old goat!)

I must confess, I  missed the apparent link in the cases.  I see the Prop 8’s constitutional problem, but DOMA?  DOMA is not a constitutional issue, rather, it’s a federal benefits issue.  DOMA restricted Federal Benefits to Heterosexual couples, what’s the big deal?  The federal government constantly and consistently gives benefits unequally.

Why does the oil industry get tax breaks AND subsidies, while having record profits and refusing to build larger refineries.  Shouldn’t we rather be giving the tax breaks to the consumers buying the gasoline products? Why did banks get bailouts, and mortgage holders got foreclosure notices?  The list is endless.

As a simple person I get concerned and confused, about “tomorrows intent” of the current decisions will be imposed.  The reason for my concern, is I KNOW that today’s intent is tomorrow expansion into the universe and beyond.

Going Underground

The gay rights activists have stated that the rulings have given them renewed impetuous to move upon the 35 remaining states in a five year plan.  The plan is to move those 35 states from no definition, to a constitutional amendment that puts homosexuals as a defined population base for marriage.  So the law of the land will be homosexual marriages under all state and federal laws.

The U.S. Constitution gives us Freedom OF Religion, I get to go to whatever church I desire, or none at all.  Unlike the early Virginia Colonies which mandated attendance at the State Church. Virginia also taxed the populous and the state then paid the state’s official Preachers.  Now that’s what I think the constitution was trying to correct concerning freedom of religion.

Thinking about this countries churches (Christian and non-Christian) , some actively participate in gay marriage recognition, others choose not to.

If in the future (the five year plan) all states are moved to expand their marriage definition, and the federal government is mandated to provide recognition, then consider what happens to that  particular “group” of  churches that does condescend to recognizing or preforming homosexual marriages  Will non-conforming churches be in violation of state and federal laws?  You betcha.

If you believe that there is “separation of church and state” in this county, then you have been bamboozled.  Remember, the Federal Government mandates benefits or lack there of;  and that also applies to churches.  Certain limitations and parameters must be maintained to be a church. Example; a Christian church may speak on any topic, and promote any issue except for a political issue, nor can it suggest whom to vote for or it may have its Religious Status Revoked and lose certain Federal Benefits.

Separation of church and state is unidirectional, the church must separate from Government, but Government oversees the church. Since a preacher/minister/leader of church signs the “states marriage certificate” the fact that they marry some persons but refuse others, could easily become a violation of the law of the land.

Most certainly the national press will jump on such a story and flare it to a fever pitch, obviously, the national press has a prejudice  against churches and especially Christian churches.

But lets go back to equal protection, I doubt that the press or government, will impose the same scrutiny upon ALL churches.  There appears to be a reluctance or fear of the secrecy of certain non-Christian churches.  I’ll leave the reasoning to  your imagination.

So it might be, that the only way for disobedient, non-conforming church to survive, would be to go “underground” like the first century Christian church, OR develop a “coded” church language and be underground in plain sight!  (Whoa, this sounds like the Lutheran Church in World War II Germany!)

I never was good in different languages, so I probably would not understand the coded language, it would all sound like mumbo-jumbo to me.


About tgriggs17

Son, Husband, Father, Retired, CPA, enjoy freshwater fishing, dotes over the grandchildren, enjoys friends.
Link | This entry was posted in Cilvil War, Learning, Life, Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Mumbo Jumbo and Going Underground

  1. Ben Griggs says:

    Yeah, this is my fear, as well. Despite what progressives might have you think, things haven’t “progressed” that much since the 1st century. At least when it comes with the government’s relationship with the Christian Church.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s