As I reflect on what seems the inevitable – the Supreme Court arbitrarily making same-sex marriage the de facto law of the land – it occurs to me how similar this will be to Roe v. Wade.
Numerous state laws will be arbitrarily struck down using an absurd “interpretation” of the Constitution as a fig leaf. This time, not as many state laws in part because lower courts have already done a lot of the dirty work of overturning Constitutional democracy.
Activists will not be appeased as tolerance of their killing (abortion)/perversion (You know what.) will not be enough for them. They will demand support and endorsement. A key instance of this after Roe v. Wade was the demand for federal funding of elective abortions. Today, we can already see what is coming as the Gaystapo demands endorsement of and even participation in gay marriage or else. “Else” meaning ruinous fines for one thing.
This time such attacks on people’s consciences will likely be more successful. The main attack after Roe v. Wade was to force taxpayers to pay for elective abortions. But that effort was largely thwarted by the Hyde Amendment, first enacted in 1976. However, several states fund elective abortions today.
The attack this time seems to having more success as life and business is becoming more difficult for those who refuse to endorse or participate in same-sex “marriage”. I’ve mentioned fines. On the way are attacks on the tax exemptions for churches and charities that refuse to bow down to the god of gay. And before you think I am being alarmist, Obama’s Solicitor General admitted that “is going to be an issue”:
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?
GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I -- I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it's certainly going to be an issue. I -- I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is -- it is going to be an issue.
May I suggest it should be made an issue in the presidential campaign? Hillary Clinton has already indicated that her version of freedom of religion is confined to “freedom of worship.” She especially should be asked where her administration would stand on this issue. (And watching her dance around this should have entertainment value as well.)
There was hope that Roe v. Wade would “settle” the question of abortion and calm divisions over it. But it made divisions worse, much worse. It satisfied neither the feminazis or the pro-lifers. Expect the same this time, largely because the Pink Shirt Gaystapo will not be appeased and will not allow space for those who disagree with gay marriage. The fight for freedom of conscience and freedom of religion will only grow more heated.
Finally, there will be another similarity to be regretted. Not one state had the backbone to defy Roe v. Wade, an arbitrary anti-Constitutional ruling that begged to be defied. Expect the same cowardice this time around as well.