Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Will Be Another Roe v. Wade

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.

About Obama’s Roe v Wade Statement

While thousands marched in protest of legalized abortion-on-demand yesterday, Our Dear Leader also marked the 41^st anniversary of Roe v Wade with a statement.  It was only one paragraph, but what a paragraph!

President Obama issued a statement today to mark the forty-first anniversary of Roe v. Wade. A mere paragraph long, it contains enough euphemism, evasion, and outright falsehood to serve simultaneously as a model of dissimulation and concision.

Moreover, Matthew Schmitz counts eight lies in it.  I’ll defer to him in that regard.  But I find two passages particularly risible.

1. . . .every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.

This old hackneyed rhetoric about a woman controlling her body willfully and completely ignores that (if she consented) she did not exercise needful self-control in the first place, resulting in an unwanted pregnancy.  More importantly, Obama’s rhetoric ignores that abortion involves more than one body and affects the body of the child far more then the body of the woman by obliterating the body of the child.

I can have a civil and polite discussion about abortion with someone who is for legal abortion (as I did yesterday in fact).  But when someone pulls this card, discussion is pretty much over.  Those who use “her body” rhetoric show they are just spouting talking points and/or willfully ignoring the life of the child.  The child is pretty much a non-person to them.  Attempting to discuss abortion or just about anything of import with people that callous and unthinking is usually pointless.

That we have a President who so willfully ignores the life of the child is chilling.

2. And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.

. . . by having permanent open season on unborn children?  Yeah, kill those babies!  It’s for all our children.

If you can stomach the whole statement, you may find that also over at First Things.

Roe v Wade and the Cowardice of the States

Today is the 41^st anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision overturning the abortion statutes of the vast majority of the states (48 if my memory is correct).  Tens of thousands, including several bishops of the Anglican Church in North America, will walk in the snow today in Washington in protest in the 40^th March for Life.

I myself participated in at least two Marches for Life back in the early 80’s.  One of them was in the snow as well.

The damage Roe v Wade inflicted extends far beyond life issues.  It made a mockery of the Constitution, of democracy, and of Constitutional federalism by asserting that the Constitution somehow demanded striking down the abortion statutes of most states and replacing them with a regime of abortion-on-demand virtually all the way to birth.

Roe v Wade was a coup against Constitutional democracy and against the states by men acting as dictators in black robes.  Justice Byron White’s dissent calling it “an exercise of raw judicial power” put it nicely.  He also stated:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment.

That is because there was nothing.

What is saddest of all is that the Supreme Court got away with it.  Yes, there has been strong movement ever since to undo Roe v Wade in various fashions, from Constitutional Amendments to a Human Life Statute to working for good Supreme Court appointments and more.

But what should have happened was defiance.  The Supreme Court may interpret the Constitution.  But it cannot obliterate it then rewrite it in its own image; or at least it should not be able so to do.  This was an absurd and outrageous ruling, really a coup against the Constitution, and should have immediately been given the respect it deserved – none. 

The states, even states moving toward liberalizing abortion laws, should have told the Supreme Court what they could do with its ruling, with its brazen attack on their rights to defend life, and then defied the ruling and carried on with their own laws as best they could.  This awful ruling was an opportunity to rally the people and the states to put the Supreme Court and the Feds in their place and to revive Constitutional governance.  And if the new President, Richard Nixon, had any principles, he should have encouraged and supported such efforts by publicly and clearly refusing to allow the Executive Branch to enforce the ruling.

But did any state so attempt to defend the Constitution and the lives of the unborn?  Any state?

The answer is what I find saddest of all about January 22^nd.