Religious Liberty Is Not Enough

I want to thank those who took the time to respond to my recent article, “Why Religious Liberty Arguments Aren’t Working.” Our focus at the Ruth Institute is crafting sound arguments and clarifying the proper context for their use. Religious liberty arguments are a case in point. While there is merit in religious liberty arguments, we propose a broader strategy that will help all who are engaged in this greatest struggle of our time.

What I’m Not Saying
I am NOT saying that lawyers like Matt Bowman and his colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom should stop taking religious liberty cases.

I am NOT saying that advocates should stop sticking up for Christians who have been harmed.

I am NOT denigrating the people who have lost their jobs, their businesses or their educational opportunities for the sake of their religious beliefs.

Never in a million years.

In fact, I support them all.

Nor am I saying that we don’t need religious liberty.

So what am I saying?

A Hypothetical Dialogue
A Christian baker refuses to bake and deliver a wedding cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding reception, citing deeply held religious beliefs. At one time, this might have been an acceptable legal argument providing protection from prosecution under anti-discrimination laws. This appears to be no longer the case.

But I’m not so interested in what will or won’t fly in a court of law. I trust the attorneys like Charles LiMandri, Jay Sekelow, Brad Dacus, Dean Broyles and all the wonderful men and women at the Alliance Defending Freedom to know their business. They know what arguments can and should be made in a court of law, under different sets of facts.

I’m getting at something else.

Suppose someone other than a lawyer questions the Christian baker: a news reporter or their next door neighbor or their lesbian co-worker.

“Why won’t you bake and deliver this cake?”

“Because my religion forbids gay marriage.”

“Why does your religion forbid gay marriage?”

“Because enacting gay marriage will force Christians to do things they don’t believe in.”

Do you see the problem? From the point of view of the non-religious person, this is not an answer at all. We cannot cite religious liberty as a free-standing argument at this point. If we do not provide our unchurched or poorly catechized neighbors with an answer that makes sense to them, they will supply their own answer:

“You won’t bake the cake because you hate gay people.”

Replying “no I don’t hate anyone” without offering a reason other than “my religion forbids it” just induces them to take an even further and more destructive step:

“In that case, your religion deserves to be suppressed.”

Now Matt Bowman may be correct that Americans have an instinctive sense of fair play that causes them to recoil from government coercion. I fear we are in danger of eroding that wholesome instinct if we do not offer reasons for our beliefs. The attractiveness of the florists, bakers and photographers, and the outrageousness of their maltreatment, may no longer be sufficient.

We need to give our countrymen reasons to do more than merely put up with us. We need to give them reasons to actively agree with us, endorse our views and work to put them into practice.

So What Do We Say?
There are a number of possible arguments we can offer at this point.

We can say that redefining marriage is bad public policy. Our organization, the Ruth Institute, puts most of its energies into developing these kinds of arguments. We can present these public policy arguments in many different contexts. Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco is not simply saying, “I’m the Archbishop. I can run my schools any way I want.” No, Archbishop Cordileone is giving reasons why the Catholic view of marriage and family is good and beautiful and deserves to be presented in all its fullness.

Even this past weekend’s March for Marriage, which had religious liberty as its central theme, did not treat religious liberty as a free-standing issue. Most of the speakers gave reasons why genderless marriage is bad policy, quite apart from people’s First Amendment rights to oppose it. Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that redefining marriage is an untried social experiment being performed on small children. This is a reason anyone should be able to understand, regardless of their religion. The Archbishop might have added: Jesus does not want us experimenting on small children.

Blind Faith Does Not Equal Stupidity
Often, our neighbors hear our religious liberty arguments as blind faith. “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” Believe it or not, I actually have some respect for the “blind faith” view. But standing alone, it doesn’t work. It is not even a properly Biblical position. 1 Peter 3:15 tells us, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” (King James Version)

What are some reasons we could offer for the hope that is in us, the hope that allows us to face serious hardships rather than renounce our beliefs?

We trust God as our loving father, and that he wants what is best for us. For a child to relax into the care of a loving parent is actually reasonable and developmentally appropriate. And let’s face it. Compared to God, we are all just a bunch of little first-graders running around causing trouble and showing off.

However, our unchurched neighbors are not going to know what we are talking about, unless we give them something to work with.

I for instance, could say that I trust Church teaching because I learned from experience that the Church was right about abortion being harmful to women. I learned from experience that the Church was correct about hook-ups and sex outside of marriage. I was willing to give the Church the benefit of the doubt about Assisted Reproductive Technology, even though I had no experience with it. Eventually, I came to believe that the Church was correct about contraception, a view which I had resisted for a long time.

You no doubt, have reasons of your own to trust God, the Bible and Church teaching. Share those reasons. People need to hear them.

In the back of my mind, is always Pope Benedict’s Regensburg address. God is not arbitrary. His will is reasonable. God wills what is good: things do not become good just because God wills them. Disobeying the moral law hurts us in the natural order, here and now, not just in the supernatural realm of life after death. This is a basic point of Catholic natural law thinking.

To be effective in this arena, though, requires a different kind of preparation than we may be used to. We have to purge ourselves of anger and blame. We have to repent of our own sexual sins. We have to deal with our guilty consciences, which often block us from seeing and telling the truth. (See me, above, re: contraception!) We cannot flinch when someone brings up divorce, Third Party Reproduction, or anything else that harms the connections between children and parents.

I heard a particularly effective instance of this delivered by John-Henry Westin at the Cleveland Right to Life convention. He gave a personal confession, along with a heartfelt plea that others, especially but not exclusively, same sex attracted people, not do as he did.

As long as we are charitable and not casting unnecessary blame, we can talk about just about anything.

What Does Victory Look Like?
Besides, what kind of victory are we seeking here anyhow?

“I will allow you to have your idiosyncratic, inexplicable and probably indefensible religious beliefs, if you will allow me to have mine.” I am not satisfied with that stalemate. We need an authentic victory before the bar of history.

Victory is people realizing that children need their own mother and father.

Hopefully people will realize it before too many children are harmed.

Let’s ensure that future generations can proclaim: “People of faith were the only ones who had the foresight to see what we needed and the fortitude to stand up and fight for us.”

Religious liberty is important. But it is not enough.

(Photo credit: Reuters / Joshua Roberts)

Jennifer Roback Morse


Jennifer Roback Morse is the founder and president of The Ruth Institute, a non-profit organization focused on keeping the family together, protecting the rights of children and helping the millions of people who have been harmed by family breakdown. She is the author, most recently, of The Sexual Revolution and Its Victims (2015). The Ruth Institute free resource, "4 Questions to Ask Before Divorce" is available here.

  • St JD George

    You do have liberties Jennifer, they are granted you from the state.

  • lifeknight

    Thank you for your article. Something in me says this is much bigger than spreading the Good News that children need a mom and a dad, however. This homosexual marriage issue strikes at the fiber of our nation in that the “mission” is to normalize and promote an act or sexual relationship which had been considered a medical diagnosis worthy of treatment.
    I continue to note the significance of the year 1973. Abortion was decriminalized and sodomy (homosexual behavior) was deleted from the list of psychological diagnoses.

    • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

      The real attack is truly Satanic and it is on the very essence of being human, of natural man, of GENDER. It is unspeakably evil because it severs our innermost sense of our self from God and convinces us that we are self-created beings according to our whims. As always, the Dragon seeks to devour the Child, innocence. All the hoopla about same sex marriage etc. is a cover for the Herodian assault on the Child.

  • Beth

    “Now Matt Bowman may be correct that Americans have an instinctive sense
    of fair play that causes them to recoil from government coercion.” Not sure if I agree with this considering what most parents will allow their schools to teach their children.

  • Vinny

    “…our unchurched (“and poorly catechized”) neighbors are not going to know what we are talking about, unless we give them something to work with.” I agree but many of those neighbors are church-going Catholics.
    Certainly we as individuals can make a difference but we desperately need strong and consistent voices making the statements you mentioned in churches throughout the country. We need the bishops to do the same through national media.

  • Vinny

    “…Bishops, said that redefining marriage is an untried social experiment being performed on small children.” Rather than “untried,” “detrimental” would’ve been a better word. People today are ALL FOR trying social experiments of all kinds.

    • Guest

      True. Experiment makes it sound like their could be a good outcome. There cannot be.

    • JourneyForTruth

      I would not say it’s an experiment, look at graph number 3 on page 8 where you will see the rate for biological cohabiting parents are at 19.5 percent for physical abuse, 9.9 sexual abuse, 8.2 emotional abuse as compared to both biological parents being
      married. That rate remains less then 2% for those categories.

      So children are better off with biological parents that are married.

      • Vinny

        So it’s not true that a family is whatever it happens to be???? I guess you can call any arrangement a family but there is only one family situation that is true, functional and healthy. You’re right, it’s not an experiment as we have already failed our children.

      • I am watching a young child be destroyed by a parent’s serial cohabitation.

        I hope to be alive said child attains a certain age. I anticipate that said individual will experience a verbal accounting that will make Katrina seem like a Summer breeze. The time is short and I am practicing.

    • This is what they want for children, that they can make this claim:
      For you won’t find a gay couple going into a Halal bakery demanding a wedding cake.

  • Vinny

    A refreshing truth – “To be effective in this arena, though, requires a different kind of preparation than we may be used to. We have to purge ourselves of anger and blame. We have to repent of our own sexual sins. We have to deal with our guilty consciences, which often block us from seeing and telling the truth.”

  • Here’s my reason why I am against gay marriage: Because gay marriage advocates are heterophobic bigots who will do anything to destroy a heteronormative society. In 2004 this changed. I used to give to AIDS hospices. I referred friends to Courage, and even to the less orthodox Dignity, to get them out of the promiscuous gay lifestyle.

    That all ended in 2004 when I became a bigot overnight for refusing to give up heterosexual lifelong monogamous marriage as the only reasonable definition of marriage. I had been arguing against divorce and contraception for several years previous to that.

    At this stage, I see nothing good left in homosexuality.

    • Siwash

      It’s clear the activists have jumped the shark, and have moved into attack mode.

      • It is very clear now. It was clear to me 11 years ago that this was where were heading after the city ordinance level rebellions against marriage.

        I was even ambivalent about Prop 8 because I thought it was too little, far too late.

  • publiusnj

    The American Folklore on which the dominant interpretation of the First Amendment (Dominant Interpretation”) is based is that America was founded by people, specifically the Pilgrims and Puritans, who fled Europe in search of religious liberty, and that religious liberty requires an absolute neutrality on all issues of morality. Were that the case, the colony (or colonies) that the Pilgrims and Puritans founded would have had some variant of the Dominant Interpretation enshrined in their law along the way. In fact, though, the Massachusetts Colony in 1647 (just 26 years after the founding of the Plymouth Colony) passed a law condemning to death any Jesuit found within the boundaries of the Colony. So much for religious liberty being the Pilgrims’ motivation! Further Proof: at the time of the passage of the First Amendment (1791), Massachusetts had an established Congregationalist church.

    The real reason for the First Amendment was far more prosaic. The new “states” just wanted to make sure that the newly empowered Federal “Congress” couldn’t interfere in the religious/moral choices state legislatures might make. While some states (e.g., Virginia) were throwing off their Anglican Establishments which had lost most adherents’ loyalty during the Methodist evangelizing of the18th Century, the New England states continued to maintain their Congregationalist Establishments well into the 19th Century. Indeed, New Hampshire did not eliminate its requirement that only Protestants could hold office until 1868.

    So, if moral neutrality were not the founding principle for the colonies and Nation, then Legislatures can make choices that rest on religious principles. People can be so disgusted with the idea of women killing their own children in utero that they can pass laws informed by reality (Roe v Wade, of course, is based on the then justices putting their hands over their eyes and saying: we just don’t know when life begins).

    Another reason we should avoid exclusive reliance on a religious liberty argument is that Religious Liberty as enshrined by the Dominant Interpretation requires militant amorality. Do we really think that that is what our forefathers wanted when they found this Nation? Is all consideration of moral principles an “establishment of religion? Only in the eyes of someone looking to abolish morality from the Public Square.

    • Watosh

      One thing for sure we are up against a “militant amorality.”

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    A well thought out essay which is becoming utterly irrelevant as the American people are being transformed into genderless ‘humans’ without a past or a future. Gay marriage is the Trojan Horse and a learning tool that teaches people to hate in the name of ‘nice’ – a breathtaking Orwellian triumph indeed.

    • gsk

      Except that if we believe in natural law, we know that affected genderlessness is a lie that leads to wretchedness. Thus, Dr Morse’s point is that since their unhappiness will ultimately lead to regret, we must act to save the children who will be caught in the crosshairs of this lie.

      Can we ward off this disaster before more damage is done, or will it take 100+ years to dial it back, and reorient our culture around the truth? Excellent article!

    • Unilateral Divorce Is Unconsti

      We would respectfully submit that the Trojan Horse arrived in California on September 5, 1969 when Ronald Reagan gutted marriage with the stroke of a pen. What we have now is all of the combatants breaking out of the contraption for the final destruction of the city.

  • JourneyForTruth

    What’s happening is our older parishioners are not on social media, they may not write letters to the editorial comment papers. Yet younger people who are unchurched are posting on social media. What needs to happen is small group breakout sessions in churches, stronger social concerns ministry, more preaching from the pulpit about social matters and activation from our seniors a lot of whom have settled into the retirement with enough assets to now just go to church for the sacraments and forget about spreading the truth of the magisterium to those without God. The church is logical and rational irregardless if you believe in God.

  • Mike (Ishouldabeenalawya)Smith

    All animals above, say, earthworms are naturally divided into male and female.

    • Vinny

      Doesn’t matter as it’s all about “love.”

      • GG

        Or, “luv”.

        • Vinny

          Where does that come from? I guess that means it’s different from what real love is.

          • GG

            It means anything goes as long as it please you.

            • Mike (Ishouldabeenalawya)Smith

              Earthworm love! Awesome!

              • St JD George

                I need them, and lots more of them so the more love the better. They are good for the health of my soil.

                • Mike (Ishouldabeenalawya)Smith

                  …and great for fishing!

                  • St JD George

                    This is weird, because last night my wife and I were talking about getting some worms to put into the soil for a new raised garden bed I made for her and I said we should go to a bait shop. Yes indeed.

                    • Mike (Ishouldabeenalawya)Smith

                      So, I guess since 1992’s Casey v Planned Parenthood in which it is our right, our duty–even, to decide what is reality “we” meaning SCOTUS can decide humans are no better than earthworms?

            • Vinny

              More code.

    • Capgen

      Earthworms are Hermaphrodites.

      • Mike (Ishouldabeenalawya)Smith

        Earthworms never have to put up with mothers in law!

  • Major914

    When I read the above article, and all typical considerations of the type, I’m struck by the tendency toward a fatal acceptance of one or more implicit paradigms which are not the product of a Biblical worldview.

    We cannot regard present and changing worldly views and schema as any limitation upon us at all–we must state things in terms of an integral Biblical worldview, not from ‘the ground up’ so-to-speak, but from the Creator on down… We must consciously avoid attempting to state the argument on the left’s terms, we must simply offer a consistent and integral alternative set of foundational terms and subsequent conclusions, and stand firm on them…

    Unexamined materialism pervades society today–to acquiesce intellectually to its accidental terms in the slightest is to worsen the entire situation tremendously. The same with phenomenalism, and relativism, and to a lesser extent atomism and hedonism.

    In an important sense, there is no such thing for Biblical traditionalists as winning a battle–it is either win the entire political war or lose the entire war. The prevailing paradigm–the language of implicit nature, structure and meaning–is where the war is won or lost. Yes, we must negate specific false arguments of the secularist-leftists, but this can only be done effectively and sustainably at the level of an exclusive paradigm–the left’s terms must always be implicitly rejected at the outset.

    For one example: we would have to explain that there is an inherent order underlying the natural world and human society,… and that scientific studies, which are quite limited, fragmentary and reductionistic by nature, simply cannot be expected to adequately account for or provide a basis for judgment in regard to that inherent, integral order,. etc., etc., but… even so….. the picture these categorically inadequate studies so far present is weighted toward the traditional view that children’s inherent needs are best served by a father and a mother united in stable marriage, etc., etc,….

    • GG

      Very true. Thanks for your effort.


    I still chuckle when I see those videos of folks going into Muslim bakeries and trying to get them to do a Mr&Mr cake or whatever.

  • leper

    I’m not sure it is safe to assume Christian lawyers are up for the legal arguments. They have to argue, and they need not only the substance of the argument, but a way to see through the opponent’s argument to slay it. (They know the law — do they know the issues in a deep and penetrating way?) And this requires a philosophical understanding of the matter. It is reported Justice Kennedy asked hard questions of both sides. Did he get good answers from the Natural Marriage side?

    • Pat M

      Yes! I have to start out by saying I am no lawyer and I’m not even an academic, but I believe you are right that the problem our side’s lawyers are having stems from a lack of depth and breadth of the issue. Why does the ssm side keep getting away with portraying marriage as nothing more than a bundle of benefits? That narrow viewpoint is the only way ssm can make any sense whatsoever. The marriage issue should be a no-brainer in a court of law where logic, the big picture, and the facts on the ground have the best chance to be considered rationally, unlike more cultural venues where emotion rules.

      • leper

        I couldn’t agree more. It occurs to me that lawyers come the same population as the rest of us and were almost certainly poorly catechized. They were trained in the law (likely by mostly leftists) so do they know the issue in a penetrating way? I think not.

        • Pat M

          And the other thing is that this issue has so very much media bias and hysteria that many, if not most people, have difficulty analyzing and thinking about the homosexuality problem factually. Everything seems filtered through liberal talking points. I think this affects everybody, in every vocation, even lawyers, except perhaps for those few people, such as our Dr Morse and others who have taken the time and have the brains to see through all the smokescreens. You know, new cultural ideas usually are permitted to be evaluated rationally. The homosexuality issue isn’t. There’s like this hysteria around it, and it sort of retards the thinking on the subject throughout society.

  • Siwash

    Good stuff. As a values-minority, Christians will be called upon to defend the reasons for their faith.

  • cestusdei

    I don’t think the arguments are going to matter. After all, to them, the truth doesn’t matter. They are going to demand we approve of homosexuality, no matter what. If we refuse we will be persecuted. That’s the bottom line. We ARE going to be persecuted.

    • No one can force you to approve of anything. I don’t care whether you think I’m a pervert or that my marriage is an abomination. It’s no skin off my back. My rights as an American citizen do not come from you.

      • GG

        You have no right to a fake marriage. You have no right to own a slave. You have no right to kill an unborn child.

        • Whether you think my marriage is “fake” is irrelevant. It has no impact on you whatsoever, as I’m confident the Supreme Court will determine.

          • GG

            Just like they said killing a baby is lawful or owning a slave was fine.

          • St JD George

            What are your thoughts on whether Justice Kagan should recuse herself on this case? She did in the case against the Un-CA where she clearly had been an advocate in her prior position so she has shown the capacity for discretion. Now having presided over many ceremonies can she execute her duties faithfully? Are legal statements on her personal feelings at odds with her ability to uphold the oath she swore to uphold as a defender of the Constitution?

            • I’m sure Kagan and Ginsburg will recuse themselves from the case when Scalia and Thomas (whose antipathy toward Gay Americans has been well-documented) do the same.

              • St JD George

                I thought about you this morning as I sat in the lobby of my dentist waiting. There on the table was the local Enquirer paper (either that or Highlights) with a front page article on the case before the court. I hadn’t followed the plaintiff’s story all that closely so was a little surprised to learn that we (survivor) are practically neighbors. Downtown in OTR vs. out in the country mind you. I guess “you are everywhere” – ha, have a sense of humor. Yes Chuck, I have had many people whom I’ve associated with over the years who are “like minded”.

              • St JD George

                I don’t know them well enough to agree on the point of whether they feel antipathy or not. Maybe. Did you read Tom Saltsman’s reply yesterday? There is always hope to be found, you just have to want to find it, and be open to loving something greater than yourself.

              • St JD George

                In the spirit of Tom’s openness yesterday I will reveal to you that I too suffered from my own addictions and demons once. I found it very easy to rationalize in my mind then that it was right and just, and caused no others harm … or so I thought. It was only through the saving power of Christ that I was able to break free of the shackles that held me in bondage. I have never felt more free and alive than I do today loving Christ. I may be persecuted for it some day, but I am at peace. I reveal that to you because through him all things are possible. He wants to have a relation with you too, because after all he is your Father.

                • I’m very happy for you. If your faith brings you comfort and peace of mind, what could be better?

                  • St JD George

                    Sharing the joy with others.

                  • LarryCicero

                    Truth. It will set you free. I too struggled with idols and demons. Seek wisdom.

              • St JD George

                Perhaps you were thinking of Judge Alito instead after this exchange yesterday. After all, why not 3, why not 4, why not … whatever combination you can dream up. What becomes the standard, just because somebody wants it?

                ( – In the oral arguments presented yesterday in the Supreme Court on the question of whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees two people of the same sex the right to marry one another, Justice Samuel Alito asked whether—if two of the same sex have a right to marry—why not four people of opposite sexes.

                “Would there be any ground for denying them a license?” Alito asked.

                “Let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers,” he said.

                Alito posed the question to Mary L. Bonauto, a lawyer who was presenting the court with arguments on behalf of clients seeking to establish a right to same-sex marriage.

                Bonauto expressed the view that states cannot prohibit two people of the same-sex from marrying but can prohibit four people of different sexes from marrying.

              • GG

                Antipathy? Like what?

          • littleeif

            Chuck, your “no impact” meme is as hollow now as the last time you offered it. You know perfectly well we are all impacted by it. Witness the articles and comments! The truth is you are indifferent to the impact and prefer to advance this set of sexual proclivities over whoever it might hurt without concern for couples, families or children, tradition, history or religion. Saying it is harmless must comfort you though since you keep repeating it,

            • Repetition is a “Bear necessity” in advancing disorder.

          • And if the SCOTUS doesn’t favor your view of things — does it all of the sudden become relevant to you? Do you care what the SCOTUS thinks about your so-called “marriage”?

            • St JD George

              I think most (not all) of them are thinking … I’d rather be anyplace than here, why did we agree to hear this. Especially after being under the intense spot light in the aftermath of their Un-CA debacle.

            • If you are approval shopping, sure.

          • The Supreme court will not “determine” anything. They will opine. For all their pretenses of sagacity, sobreity and objectivity, those opinions are found wanting by history with alarming frequency.
            Justice Jackson pierced the veil of omniscience with the observation that they were infallible because they were final, not final because they were infallible.

            Most of government is out of control, and the judiciary might be the branch most out of control. I have two different friends who know two different SCOTUS “justices”. One went to high school and college with one of them. There was a time I wanted to exploit those friendships to meet these individuals. No more.

            • Jason Wills

              What a relief to see you making sensible comments again, DE-173.

              • Who are you to judge?

                • Jason Wills

                  As someone endowed with reason and good sense.

                  • Not really.

                    • Jason Wills

                      Yes, really. You’re not going to start making an ass of yourself again, are you?

                    • Again? From somebody who never stops and makes it an art form?
                      Otherwise, go back to booking a room in Wittenberg for 10/31/2017.

                    • Jason Wills

                      Now you’re really not making any sense. Guess I jumped the gun, eh?

          • MHB

            Are you unaware of the lawsuits won against those who object to same-sex weddings? How can you say it will have no impact when it has cost business owners thousands of dollars, when tax-exempt status is threatened for any institution, church, school, charitable organization, that does not approve?

      • St JD George

        That’s true, your rights were endowed to you by your creator in heaven. Only another man can attempt to take them away. As you live and breath, give thanks to him, for all glory is in him.

      • Your “marriage” is a mirage.

        • A mirage at least has visual believability. Same sex pretend marriages don’t even approach the substance of mirages. No sane man can think he is watching a real marriage take place in those cases.

          • Perhaps to quote Kagan: “a vapid and hollow charade”?

        • LarryCicero

          “Red is grey and yellow white
          But we decide which is right
          And which is an illusion?”

          • or Knights in Black Robes.

      • cestusdei

        Oh but you DO care, so much so that you persecute those who don’t agree with you.

    • Watosh

      Unfortunately you are absolutely correct.

  • JP

    Jennifer, this is as much a Constitutional debate as it is a religious one. I can preach all day about the history of Holy Matrimony and how it mirrors the love Christ has for Sinners – the Bride of Christ and all that. I can preach all day about how the “marriage act” also mirrors the self-giving that Christ has for His Church. I could give out Theology of the Body pamphlets and cite Popes and theologians. But, none of the detracts from the constitutional apostasy we see all around us. Two decades ago we would not be having this conversation.

    And this goes much deeper than catechists or even legal theory. For you won’t find a gay couple going into a Halal bakery demanding a wedding cake. That is the unspoken truth. Christians are being targeted, and everyone knows it. It is high time Christians in general and Catholics in particular get off the defensive and go on offense. Forget about cathechisis, and think about the abrogation of your constitutional rights by a group of well heeled, petty fascists. It is past time for our Bishops to defend their flock.

    • Veritas

      You’re right, JP, and I agree that the war must be fought on more than one front. Never abandon the constitutional approach.

      I think Dr. Morse is saying something else that is very important, and that is the real-life carnage that is caused by not heeding loving Church wisdom on moral matters. This message is the one that often gets overshadowed by words like “sin.” The humanists don’t want religion, and moral teaching may not need be “religious” when it is in fact good sense for better living.

    • If I lived in a small town, and the only bakery that sold wedding cakes was a Halal bakery, and they made cakes that I thought were particularly good, I would certainly ask them if they would have any problems making a cake for Gay couple. I’ve had plenty of Muslim co-workers and friends in my lifetime, and they’ve always treated me kindly. They’re certainly a far cry from ISIS stereotypes.

      • And then report them, and then sue them, and threaten fines and shutting them down if they said, “Yes, I have a problem,” right?

        If not, then you are fair-minded and truly tolerant. Many SSAers wouldn’t be so kind.

      • St JD George

        That it because they are in the minority. Taqiyya is a waiting game, but once the numbers are supportive the tables are turned and all is revealed. Did you see the latest tactic I shared yesterday; to befriend, hug, reveal, then stone? Granted, not everyone in the ME behaves as IS, but that is only because they have become absorbed with trade and the modern economy and have fallen away to varying degrees from their faith. Every once in awhile they are forced to confront the hard cold realities that they have come to learn to ignore.

    • Jim in Pittsburgh

      What’s your plan?

    • Lawyer and radio host Mark Levin asserts that we are in a post-constitutional age, where the limits it imposes are routinely exceeded, and where some rights are construed expansively, where others are constrained.
      If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, has it made a sound? If you have a constitution or other charter and its provisions are ignored, evaded or exceeded routinely, do you have a rule of law?

      • The “Living Document” is the wax nose of the ideologues. No original intent or fixed meaning to the wacko leftists. Just a veneer of law.

        • Concealing the foul pile of dung that is Imperial edict.

        • Jim in Pittsburgh


  • littleeif

    I understand and appreciate your opinion, Dr. Morse, but continue to challenge it to this extent: I do not believe the current appeal of the homosexual agenda is based on reason therefore it is impervious to rational argument. The appeal is emotional and the emotion hides under the rubric “the heart has reasons reason itself does not understand”. Otherwise traditional Christians become confused on this basis, much less the un-churched. Furthermore, as Robert Reilly observes in “Making Gay OK”, the acceptance of the homosexual agenda involves mutually legitimizing rationalizations. It feeds on the wickedness of society.

    While our elites may not themselves suffer under these delusions, they certainly understand the political and economic advantages of wave politics. One cannot expect our judiciary, politicians and educators to ride out a tsunami of popular opinion lashed to reason. In sum, I have concluded rational arguments are not going to sway public opinion and outcomes any more than one could convince a person engaging in homosexuality it is irrational to cast one’s entire being in terms of a sex act.

    In an environment where all else will fail, I would prefer to hang my flag on my religious faith. Democracy gave rise to the thought I had that I have some ability, therefore responsibility, to shape our country’s future. When that ability ends, the responsibility changes and I become as a Christian living in Imperial Rome.

    • Pat M

      Agreed littleeif. If we could convince liberals on this issue through arguments we would already have done so by now. That strategy is almost useless. Whether liberals understand us or not, we need to make it clear that we will not act against our moral beliefs, giving assent to falsehoods and evil. They need to see us solid and standing on our beliefs. What is needed is simply more confidence on our side, and to that end arguments are only useful for us to share amongst ourselves, to build us up. And these should be SIMPLER arguments, to give Christians more confidence, and more clarity on what is essentially a simple issue: For example, almost any Christian can understand and explain himself thusly: “Marriage means husband and wife; it is central to Christian morality; and I will not call something marriage which I know is NOT a marriage.”

  • Mike Smith

    Faith arguments never win in a discussion between a believer and a non-believer, because faith is a necessary outcropping of belief. Can one have a Christian faith before he or she first believes in Christianity?

    Perhaps it’s a distinction without a difference, but for someone to believe something is true, they have to have a reason. And once you believe, it helps you accept the mysteries that come about through faith. In appealing to faith first over reason, you are attempting to jump to the stop of the stairs without first getting someone to take the first steps.

  • Jim in Pittsburgh

    Dr. Morse’ conclusion is quite stirring:

    “…I am not satisfied with that stalemate. We need an authentic victory before the bar of history.

    “Victory is people realizing that children need their own mother and father.

    “Hopefully people will realize it before too many children are harmed.

    “Let’s ensure that future generations can proclaim: ‘People of faith were the only ones who had the foresight to see what we needed and the fortitude to stand up and fight for us.'”

    I am in 100% agreement. The problem is we are not even close to a “stalemate”, and we haven’t taken the first steps towards “victory”, authentic or otherwise, “before the bar of history”.

    During most of our lifetimes, there were two great “issues” that galvanized Christians and conservatives into action. These were the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and abortion-on-demand. Both issues resulted in the creation of crusades, or movements. The former movement (Stop ERA) was completely successful in stopping what many of us considered the unstoppable. The latter crusade (Pro-Life Movement), which had much more popular support, and the official endorsement of the Church, failed. Why?

    Before we advance further in our crusade against same-sex “marriage” (that, if I read my tea leaves accurately, will probably be endorsed by the Supreme Court in a 5 – 4, or 6 – 3 ruling in June) we MUST first study the strategies and tactics of success and failure. Then we must cobble together a coalition that can win.

    In other words, WE NEED UNITY AND WE NEED A PLAN.

    It will not be easy. It will take a lot of prayer, a lot of thought, and a hell of a lot of work.

    Any ideas?

    • Same sex marriage is advancing a key aspect of the ERA: gender neutrality. Thus, I believe same sex marriage is actually a trojan horse for feminist ideals.

      • Jim in Pittsburgh

        You are right, Jennifer. Feminist leaders and writers have been stating this for years. They have also been preaching the destruction of the family. They will succeed if we don’t stop them.

        • They have largely succeeded and have had plenty of help.
          Feminism is just one of those groups that form the confederated left.

          • Jim in Pittsburgh

            Yes, and no. Feminism is much more than just another lefty group. If any part of the Left can be characterized as truly Marxist, it is modern feminism.

  • St JD George

    by BEN SHAPIRO Apr 2015563

    On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, more commonly known as the same-sex marriage case. The Supreme Court will be deciding whether the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 at a time when every single state in America criminalized sodomy, mandates same-sex marriage in every single state in America.

    The justices of the left, along with Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the egregious opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) in which he stated that those committing homosexual acts are Constitutionally “entitled to respect for their private lives” will determine that yes, the Constitution mandates not merely that the state respect private lives, but that the state endorse those private lives (so long as, presumably, polygamy and incest are off the table – for now).

    Supreme Court oral arguments are useless, which is why Justice Clarence Thomas never bothers to ask questions; the justices have already made up their minds based on the submitted briefs. Nonetheless, court-watchers pay attention to oral arguments looking for indicators of how the justices will rule. If those oral arguments are any indicator, same-sex marriage will not merely be handed down from on high when this case is decided, religious institutions can prepare to have their tax-exempt status yanked (as I predicted, and as Media Matters scoffed at me for predicting, more than two years ago).

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, who represents the likely swing vote in the same-sex marriage case, made his position crystal clear with his questions to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. “Haven’t we learned a tremendous amount since – well, since Lawrence, just in the last 10 years?” he asked. That led Verrilli to praise Kennedy’s decision in Lawrence, stating, “I think what Lawrence did was provide an assurance that gay and lesbian couples could live openly in society as free people and start families and raise families and participate fully in their communities without fear.”

    Later on, Kennedy explicitly rejected a linkage between marriage and child-bearing and child-rearing, stating to John Bursch, lawyer for traditional marriage, “You had some premise that only opposite-sex couples can have a bonding with the child. That’s – that was very interesting, but it’s just a wrong premise.” That, of course, was not Bursch’s premise – Bursch explained that his premise was that “we want to encourage children to be bonded to their biological mother and father.” But the fact that Kennedy ignored that argument in favor of a strawman demonstrates his perspective on same-sex marriage. Similarly, he ignored Bursch’s argument that marriage has a practical purpose, instead suggesting that traditional marriage advocates didn’t believe that marriage is “dignity bestowing.”

    Chief Justice John Roberts asked the representative for gay couples, Mary Bonauto, whether she sought for homosexuals to join the institution of marriage or whether she was seeking to “redefine the institution.” Bonauto responded that the definition of marriage had to change because “what we once viewed as the role of women, or even the role of gay people, is something that has changed in our society.” But even Roberts, supposedly a proponent of traditional marriage, then suggested that enough time had passed for Americans to engage in a debate about same-sex marriage, although courts have mandated same-sex marriage in the vast majority of states in which it is legal.

    Justice Samuel Alito then took over the questioning and asked whether Bonauto believed that all marriage statutes were designed to “demean gay people.” Bonauto essentially answered yes to the question. Alito followed up by asking whether for thousands of years, all cultures that endorsed traditional marriage were “operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes or prejudice?” Bonauto answered again in the affirmative. Alito asked Bonauto why, then, ancient Greece approved homosexuality but still did not endorse same-sex marriage. She claimed ignorance. Alito then asked why same-sex marriage should be endorsed but not incest or polygamy; she answered that polygamy would lead to family disruption (a particularly weak argument, given the nature of multiple divorce in America today), and coercion (another weak argument, since coercion is already illegal). He asked the same question in another guise to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who similarly failed to answer it.

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stepped in to irrationally demean the institution of marriage, calling it a historically “dominant and a subordinate relationship,” then stating that modern society had made marriage “egalitarian,” and that egalitarian marriage would encompass homosexual couples.

    Justice Antonin Scalia asked Bonauto whether she could name “a single other society until the Netherlands in 2001” that “permitted same-sex marriage.” She admitted she could not, but added that all other societies were basically homophobic. He also asked Bonauto whether “a minister who is authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men.” Bonauto said that the First Amendment would protect such ministers, although she did not explain why the First Amendment would do so, given that the lawyer for the Obama administration, Verrilli, would later openly admit that religious institutions could see their non-profit status revoked, and religious businessowners in various states have already been fined for failing to serve same-sex weddings. And as Scalia pointed out, a Constitutional requirement to recognize same-sex marriage would only strengthen such acts against religious Americans.

    Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan all endorsed in glowing terms same-sex marriage; that’s no surprise, since all are rabidly left generally, and both Kagan and Ginsburg have officiated same-sex weddings. All argued that the institution of marriage is specifically designed only to grant dignity, and that it is discriminatory not to grant dignity to homosexual couples – showing once and for all that for the left, the government is God, and that the State is the final arbiter of all that is just and good, rather than a protector of rights pre-existing government.

    In the end, the Supreme Court will rule that same-sex marriage is the law of the land; the pseudolegal nonsense spewed by the various justices having no relation to the Constitution is mere post facto justification for decisions already made.

    • I think Roberts and Kennedy were pointedly trying NOT to tip their hands on this issue. I think they WANTED to come off as having some degree of healthy skepticism. But ultimately, between the 14th Amendment, the “Full Faith & Credit” clause, and the fact that NOTHING about the “definition” of marriage is changing for Straight people … I remain cautiously optimistic.

      • GG

        If you read that piece above, and are honest, you will conclude the entire notion of homosexual unions is simply nonsense. The post modern relativists, as we see above, make things up. Everything is “homophobic” or not egalitarian which is a code that says we want to act perversely and you meanies just won’t let us.

        • Seamrog

          Chuck is not honest – he is a habitual liar.

          • And a monomaniacal hypergraphic.

      • LarryCicero

        Alito asked if four lawyers could get married. Would you refuse to answer that question on the basis that slippery slope questions are unworthy of a reply?

        • I think Alito was making a joke.

          • LarryCicero

            I think he was making a point that there are limits as to who can enter into a marriage and looking for reasons as to why or where one draws the line. If there were reports of laughter, I missed that.

        • GG

          They cannot give a coherent answer because they would have to admit the truth.

          • LarryCicero

            It illustrates the absurdity of their petition.

            • GG

              And that is the dance that constantly goes on. Pretend deviants acts are not that bad. Pretend same sex desire is natural and to be celebrated. With that premise nothing good will come. Children suffer because of it.

            • Objectivetruth

              Lifesite News has some great articles on the SCOTUS arguments:

              “WASHINGTON, D.C., April 28, 2015 ( – As they prepare to render a potential landmark legal decision on the issue of same-sex “marriage,” the Supreme Court’s justices made clear that their verdict will rest on a few questions:

              Is marriage based on biology or feelings?

              Who should decide whether to redefine an institution that stretches back for “millennia”?

              If justices begin tampering with the historically exclusive definition of marriage as the lifelong union of a man and woman, what would prevent future courts from imposing polygamy, incest, or pedophilia-based “marriage” on the nation?”

              • LarryCicero

                In Bonauto’s discombobulated reply, the truth was inadvertently stumbled upon when she stated “the question then becomes one of justification”- the question many of the articles and comments here at Crisis have been hammering away at; “What is the justification of marriage- historical, legal and moral?”
                I have argued that the justification is the potential for procreation in the relationship and that the absence of that potential is justification to deny that status to same sex couples. My comment history is not private. Others have made arguments for paternity(MPS) for legal aspects, and many arguments have been posited on moral grounds. When we can’t agree on the definition of a word we are in serious trouble.
                In the matter of slavery, Lincoln stated that it matters what the nature of the thing is- that the property called slaves was not equal to the property called hogs. The nature of marriage is by definition husband and wife, and a child must have one mother and one father. The sex act between two of the same sex is not equal to the marital act between opposite sexes-to claim anything else is absurdity, and yet we will have to wait until June, for the black robed geniuses to deliberate. We need to pray for our country.

              • LarryCicero

                Great articles there today. Thanks.

        • Leftist playbook: deny, deny, deny.

          Sanity says, “Let’s logically test where these ideas take us.”. Insanity says, “I can’t be bothered with ramifications, just what is right in front of me.”.

          • LarryCicero

            Leftist playbook: lie,lie,lie.
            Vote to remove God, but keep Him there for appearances.

      • St JD George

        “Reading” some of the judges (i.e. the two you mentioned) has proven problematic of late, we’ll see in June. They are human too so after being excoriated lately on some other rulings straying from the oath they swore to uphold it will be interesting to see how their thought process and consciousness evolves on this. I for one was pretty deflated after the chief justice ended up arguing for (effectively) and changing the terms of the case for the incompetent USG attorney to rule on their side for the Un-CA.

    • GG

      It really does go back to the repeal of anti sodomy laws. Once the State affirms deviant behavior then there is no end in sight. Anything goes. So-called private behavior influences public morals.

      • St JD George

        I don’t disagree that they aren’t ultimately related, however, there is a big jump from trying to legislate all morality in the privacy of one’s bedroom which hardly anyone would stand for (God will ultimately judge) to celebrating and legitimizing, and ultimately demanding acceptance of in the public sphere.

        • GG

          There is no private sin that does not affect society. Some worse than others. Sodomy is one such particular sin. Once that is taught as normal and good you transform and deform all of society.

          • St JD George

            I don’t disagree, just offering some pragmatism.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        The new Penal Code, proposed by Louis Michel le Peletier, Marquis de Saint-Fargeau (promulgated September 26 – October 6, 1791) abolished the crimes of blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft [le blasphème, la sodomie et la sorcellerie]. This provision was approved, without a debate. Even at that time, it was universally recognised that such laws had no place in a secular republic.

        No subsequent government ever sought to reinstate them, and most European countries adopted the French Penal Code, along with the Code Napoléon, but it was some two centuries before anyone suggested the idea of same-sex marriage.

        • Michael you need to be asked a question, bluntly: Who [insert choice expletitive here] cares about the edicts of the idiot 18th century French.
          Europe adopted the French Penal Code. Europe also gave us socialism, nihilism, utilitarianism and whole host of lunacies as well as two world wars. Helically inclined plane Europe. It is a moral cesspool.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            GG argued a link between the repeal of anti-sodomy laws and SSM.

            My point was that a lerge partof Europe got rid of them more than two centuries ago. Most Latin American countries followed suit. Like blasphemy and witchcraft, sodomy was traditionally categorized as an “offence against religion,” and the Roman maxim, “deorum injuriae diis curae” [offences against the gods are the gods’ business] prevailed.

        • GG

          No example to follow.

      • And why not repeal anti sodomy laws? Kennedy wrote that it was the “customary” practice of homosexuals and anything customary must be enabled. Maybe that’s why moron Mayor of Baltimore wanted to give those who wanted to “destroy”, “room” to do so.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    The reason for the commandments is given by St Peter: “Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy” (1 Pet 1:16) These words ring like a refrain though Leviticus (11:44, 11:45, 19:2, 20:7) reminding us that religion is the service of God out of love. In every age, the true service of God entails rebellion against utilitarianism and anthropocentrism, but today it is additionally a rebellion against the reigning secularist values of society.

    Every reason given for God’s commandments that bases itself on human need of any kind, intellectual, ethical, social, national—empties the commandments of allreligious meaning. If they are meant to benefit society, then he who performs them does not serve God but himself or society or his people. He uses the law of God for his own benefit and as a means to satisfy his needs and God is turned into a sort of cosmic minister of health or chief of police.

  • Mike W

    I don’t think the “untried social experiment” is a great argument either. The fact is it has been an experiment, the results are coming in and they show it is a bad idea. People just need to look to see the evidence.

    • St JD George

      Here’s an untried social experiment that’s going well … legalizing pot. Now we have people jumping out of windows, an increase in suicide and car accidents, lethargy, and businesses moving out of state because worker productivity is on the decline. Some things you just don’t have to try to know they aren’t going to turn out well when you engage your brain.

      • Pot has a stupifying effect. Only drippy hippies of yore and their thick offspring thought legalization would usher in a golden age of peace. Idiots.

        • St JD George

          Our enemies could devise a better strategy to destroy ourselves from within.

      • I kind of chuckled when I heard some “lead with your chin” libertarians declare victory when pot was legalized. Sure, there was still the IRS and the rest of the federal alphabet soup, but now you could get stoned legally.
        Every time my number comes up for me to surrender my urine, or I sit in a rules class with the endless droning on about pre-employment, random and for cause testing, I think of the stoners telling me how this was a victory-wait until pot is legal, every day you show up will require a degrading pee test.

        I can even get the munchies without cannabis…

  • St JD George

    Don’t take my word …

    In what is sure to be regarded as a controversial article, Paul Rosnick, a 30-year-old gay man, makes the case that a big secret looms amongst the LGBT community — not all of them are for same-sex marriage. Fearing that he might become a target of the “Gaystapo” for writing such an article, Rosnick writes under a pseudonym for The Federalist.

    “[T]here is nothing in this world I want more than to be a father and raise a family,” Rosnick admits. “Yet I can’t seem to bring myself to celebrate the triumph of same-sex marriage.”

    And that’s the “big secret” he shares with what he says are a “significant number” of other homosexuals. The reason he says those voices aren’t louder is because of gay rights activists — “most of whom are straight” — who “have a history of viciously stamping out any trace of individualism within the gay community.”

    Rosnick is staunchly against the idea perpetrated by activists that same-sex relationships are no different than heterosexual ones. “It’s about time we realize this very basic truth and stop pretending that all relationships are created equal,” he writes.

    In Rosnick’s view, too many people view marriage “as little more than a love contract.” If that is indeed what marriage is reduced to, then by all means, he says, allow homosexuals to marry. But, he asks: “If marriage is little more than a love contract, why do we need government to get involved? Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships? Why does every religion hold marriage to be a sacred and divine institution? Surely marriage must be more than just a love contract.”

    And that it is. Traditional marriages produce babies and that, Rosnick says, is why government involved itself in the arrangement. And the creation of new life between a male and a female is what differentiates true marriage from any other:

    Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples relegates this once noble institution to nothing more than a lousy love contract. This harms all of society by turning marriage, the bedrock of society, into a meaningless anachronism.

    But Rosnick’s next section may be the most poignant to homosexual men, namely putting aside their own desires and putting the needs of a child first:

    I have always wanted to be a father. I would give just about anything for the chance to have kids. But the first rule of fatherhood is that a good dad will put the needs of his children before his own—and every child needs a mom and a dad. Period. I could never forgive myself for ripping a child away from his mother so I could selfishly live out my dreams… Let’s raise them in homes where they can enjoy having both a mom and a dad. We owe them that.

    There are others who have shared Rosnick’s sentiments. One was also featured in The Federalist and was previously reported here at TruthRevolt. Heather Barwick was raised by two mothers and is now an outspoken critic of same-sex marriage, saying that having no father in her life created a “huge hole” in her life. Barwick is also a children’s advocate speaking up for those who are hurting by being silenced by a community that demands agreement.

    In another case, also reported here, a Canadian woman whose rearing under a promiscuous homosexual father led her to the conclusion that same-sex marriage is in the business of “promoting adults’ desires” over the rights of children to be raised by their biological parents warned that same-sex marriage has changed freedom in Canada profoundly and that once fully established in America, the Land of the Free will be increasingly less free.

    • Veritas

      Great post. Thank you.

    • “have a history of viciously stamping out any trace of individualism within the gay community.”
      There was a reason Mao made everybody dress in the same drab gray.

  • DerekDuckDisQus

    The 1st amendment and its religious liberty clause and freedom of association clause and freedom of expression clause are not an absolutes but they are closer to absolute than than public access statutes. Some how new law has become more relavent than constitutional law. We have to look at refusal to accept homo-relationships as an absolute sincere religious tradition. I agree with this author 100%.

  • Pat M

    Dr J, I am a huge fan of yours and have learned much from you on the marriage issue, but coming from the religious liberty angle, I disagree with you somewhat, because reading this article it makes it sound like we believe what we believe about marriage BECAUSE it is bad public policy, sets harmful precedents for children, etc. (I know you don’t feel that way – I’m just saying that’s how it sounds) Those things are true, to be sure, but we believe what we believe about marriage first and foremost because of the ten commandments; essentially BECAUSE GOD SAID SO. I know that sounds a bit trite and unintellectual, but I think that is the strongest starting point. Social science explanations come second. The first reason is religious, and should always be put out there first to make sure the listener understands we are standing with God on this. God’s commandments just happen to be very rational and make an excellent basis for public policy! 🙂 May I suggest something Dr J? Can you bend your formidable intellect to helping religious people make better religious arguments? You don’t have to abandon the social science or public policy viewpoint by any means. But the religious people who are not up to the academic/social science/intellectual arguments, these people could use some pointers in phrasing and presenting the basic arguments. And if your liberal academic peers do not understand religious reasons, THEY ALSO NEED TO BE ENLIGHTENED. This is urgent. Please understand, I am not saying you should try to convince them on religious grounds. I am asking that you try to enlighten them as to why we have religious objections. You might think they understand, but I think events are showing that they truly do not. This is egregious. Please I ask you focus more energy on the religious point of view. It complements your other work very well I think! God bless.

  • An Orthodox Christian

    I fully expect the Supreme Court to declare bans on Homosexual “marriages” to be unconstitutional. With this ruling, the political battle will be over.
    Caesar will do whatever he likes….what is that to us? The conservative argument fails on two fronts:
    1.) That America can be “saved” if the right people are elected.
    NO. The Republican party will not save America. The Republican Party will not turn back the tide….there will be no restoration. The America of Ronald Reagan, of the “Greatest Generation” and Rockwell pictures is DEAD….it has passed into history. This isn’t pessimism or cynicism, this is reality.
    2.) The Constitution is a “sacred document.” The Constitution is the work of men, and as such turns to dust eventually like everything we create. Only the Gospel is eternal. Our country is a Nation state with all the foilables that come with it…..good in some things, not so good in others. We are a mixed bag, as with anything else.
    For a long time, The Judeo-Christian ethic ruled much of American life, because that was our culture. A nation is only as holy as the people who live in it. Our government is a reflection of us….we get the government we deserve.
    There is no political solution to the problems of American life. Only the Gospel can save us, one person at a time. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. If Caesar has apostasized, live the Faith and be a witness…..
    BUT, I think we should jettison any ideas of “taking America back” because the problem is within…..if persecution comes, then we meet it….
    I can see the angst, but America is lost…..there is nothing to do but be a light, and by the grace of God people will find the way.

  • Unilateral Divorce Is Unconsti

    Right. This further explanation is very helpful and appreciated, because the earlier piece sounded to many like an “either / or” proposition. You know, 40-45 years ago in most states we plunged headlong into another untested social experiment, carried along by a popular false analogy called “no-fault” divorce. That untested social experiment, costing the taxpayer some $25,000 per year per household, most likely also set the stage for the current situation and constitutional crisis our nation is now faced with. Brushing aside the constitutional protection of fundamental rights for millions of contesting, non-offending respondents for the sake of sexual autonomy has already failed miserably, and as was the case when virtually the same law was enacted by the co-emperors of the Roman Empire, Theodosius II and Valentinian III, circa 439 A.D., exactly 2 generations later the empire fell to the Vandals. Sooner or later the piper will be paid. I agree with Dr. Morse that we must get better explaining the cost to society of violating either end of God’s Matt. 19:4-6 definition of marriage – verse 4 and/or verse 6.

  • winslow

    Dr. Morse, what you call ‘a religious liberty argument’ is nothing of the kind. It is a legal argument drawn from the founding document of our Country and we ought not throw it away. Homosexuals and atheists may not recognize our religion(s), but our Constitution does. Homosexuals demand and have been given rights not found in the Constitution, but they have suckered many judges and legislators into denying to those who claim, not merely a Constitutional right, but the very first right enshrined in that document, a right not given to us by a benevolent State, but one acknowledged by that State in the First Amendment. That is the right homosexuals and their judges have taken away from the American people. If they don’t think that’s true, just ask the photographers and bakers who have claimed that right by refusing, on the grounds of their right to the free exercise of their religion, to participate in a bogus event, an even they do not recognize, staged by homosexuals. That’s the argument that should have been presented to the Supreme Court earlier this week. Here’s another one.
    Regarding the 14th Amendment, homosexuals always had the same ‘right’ as every one else, the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex who will have them. Homosexuals who do not wish to exercise that right, instead of accepting the consequences of their decision, insist on creating a ‘right’ that doesn’t exist in order to corrupt the law and change the definition of marriage, which cannot be changed except by lies (casting their cause as a civil rights matter, for example), deceit and a corrupt judiciary.
    To call a homosexual coupling a marriage makes a mockery of marriage and degrades that institution in the same way their sexual coupling degrades the marital act of procreation. The damage to society accrues when children are compelled, and indeed coerced to believe the lie that laws should proceed from ‘feelings’ instead of the legal principles which have always sought the good of the society at large. Once children are so indoctrinated they will grow into adults who will have no respect for marriage and will treat it in the same way the California feminist lawyers who invented no-fault divorce foisted it upon the country, as a throw-away event which has no lasting meaning, and which can be abandoned at will by either party. Once that notion has been established, we will have introduced into our society an acid which will corrode the fabric of our existence as a free people whose highest interest should be the common good. As to feelings, rapists have feelings, serial killers have feelings, child abusers, including those wealthy individuals who pay dearly for a tour of Southeast Asia for the specific purpose of having sex with children, they have feelings, too. If we are about governing our society by our feelings, then anything goes and there is no such thing as morality and the concept of principled behavior has been eliminated from the conversation. That appears to be the direction our courts want us to take. That argument should have been made to the Supreme Court this week.
    The deceitful tactics of homosexual activists should be argued relentlessly and their lies exposed. First among them the lie they tell to the youngest children, that a child can have two mothers or two fathers. Yet if a pro-marriage teacher sought to teach her class the truth, that every single person on the planet has one mother and one father, she stands in danger of losing her job. That’s what it has come to in this age of homosexual supremacy. The homosexuals distortion of the language, beginning with the use of the word ‘gay’ to mean homosexual and their ceaseless brainwashing tactic of the Big Lie. The biggest lie, that there are no more parents, only progenitors, should have been brought to the attention of the Court.
    In his dreams, Justice Kennedy has found animus against homosexuals by Americans, religious or otherwise, who do not accept the concept of a man making an agreement with another man and calling it marriage. If the Justice wants to bring real animus, real malice into the game, he needs to examine the behavior of those homosexuals he cannot refrain from coddling. When a baker refuses to bake a cake for a homosexual party, rather than find a baker who will, the homosexual will drag the baker into court, with her bakery along side, and sue her into bankruptcy. The homosexual will do all he can to destroy the baker’s life. That’s real animus, Mr. Justice Kennedy. That’s real malice and I put it to you, Mr. Justice, that is genuinely despicable behavior. Those are the kinds of people you have chosen to champion. They are the ones demanding rights for themselves while denying rights to others. They are the ones demanding tolerance while showing themselves to be the most intolerant people in the world, right next to Islamic extremists. Those arguments should have been made to the Supreme Court this week.
    There’s a saying in pro football that the best defense is a good offense. In my opinion the pro-marriage argument had been all defense, weak, ineffectual arguments designed for one purpose only — to avoid offending anyone. It’s a strategy going nowhere. Get tough, Dr. Morse. It’s the only way out.
    Ferde Rombola

  • Jennifer

    Thank you for this article Dr. Robeck Morse, and more specifically for the actual arguments needed.

  • autom8

    Churches are gonna lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to
    perform same-sex weddings. If the court finds a constitutional right
    for same-sex marriage, then every church that refuses to perform such
    weddings is gonna lose their tax-exempt status, and that’s going to
    eliminate many of them. They will not be able to stay, quote/unquote,
    “in business,” open, without their tax-exempt status. Of course. this
    is the ultimate goal of Obama’s war on the Catholic Church.