Bryan Fischer
The battle of the ages: passing Cruz's federal marriage amendment
By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have revealed that the fix is in on homosexual marriage at the Supreme Court.
In their dissent on the Court's refusal to extend a stay against issuing same-sex marriage licenses in Alabama, they wrote that the Court's abject acquiescence to political correctness "may well be seen as a signal of the Court's intended resolution of that question."
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Thomas and Scalia are right, that oral arguments in April over homosexual marriage are a waste of time, as are all the amicus briefs filed by pro-family groups. The Court, they say, has its mind made up and will not be confused with pesky little things like the actual wording of the Constitution itself.
Will the battle for marriage be over at that point? Hardly. It will have only begun.
A Court ruling imposing marriage based on what Massachusetts law still calls "the abominable and detestable crime against nature" will not settle the marriage issue any more than Roe v. Wade settled the abortion issue.
The difference today is that there is a solution that can, and should, and will be pursued the instant the Supreme Court issues its benighted ruling.
Ted Cruz has prepared an amendment to the federal constitution which will protect the right of the states to define marriage for themselves, free from the interference of homosexual activists masquerading as federal judges.
Cruz's amendment, it should be noted, will not enshrine a definition of marriage in the Constitution, but will protect the right of each state to decide the issue for itself.
This amendment, of course, should not even be necessary, and would not be if the federal judiciary was being governed by the Constitution itself and not the liberal zeitgeist. But alas, out-of-control and unaccountable judges have made Cruz's amendment a necessity.
Once Cruz's amendment is introduced, it will instantly be the defining issue in the 2016 presidential campaign. There will be no other. In the pro-family community, support for Cruz's amendment will be the litmus test for every single Republican candidate for the Oval Office. No Republican candidate for the presidency will have a prayer of getting the support of the conservative base if he does not enthusiastically support Cruz's amendment.
The campaign to enact Cruz's marriage amendment, which will begin the moment the Court announces its opinion, will be the battle of the ages. There will be no other battle. Passing it will be the rallying cry for every pro-family organization worthy of its name and every Christian church worthy of its name.
If a Ted Cruz had been around in 1973, to propose a similar amendment regarding the sanctity of life, American history in the decades since may have been much different.
Well, we do have a Ted Cruz today, and he is offering the United States a way to protect the sacred institution of one-man, one-woman marriage, and a way to protect and preserve the Constitution and the founding principle of self-governance at the same time.
It's time to armor up. Let the battle begin.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
February 11, 2015
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have revealed that the fix is in on homosexual marriage at the Supreme Court.
In their dissent on the Court's refusal to extend a stay against issuing same-sex marriage licenses in Alabama, they wrote that the Court's abject acquiescence to political correctness "may well be seen as a signal of the Court's intended resolution of that question."
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Thomas and Scalia are right, that oral arguments in April over homosexual marriage are a waste of time, as are all the amicus briefs filed by pro-family groups. The Court, they say, has its mind made up and will not be confused with pesky little things like the actual wording of the Constitution itself.
Will the battle for marriage be over at that point? Hardly. It will have only begun.
A Court ruling imposing marriage based on what Massachusetts law still calls "the abominable and detestable crime against nature" will not settle the marriage issue any more than Roe v. Wade settled the abortion issue.
The difference today is that there is a solution that can, and should, and will be pursued the instant the Supreme Court issues its benighted ruling.
Ted Cruz has prepared an amendment to the federal constitution which will protect the right of the states to define marriage for themselves, free from the interference of homosexual activists masquerading as federal judges.
Cruz's amendment, it should be noted, will not enshrine a definition of marriage in the Constitution, but will protect the right of each state to decide the issue for itself.
This amendment, of course, should not even be necessary, and would not be if the federal judiciary was being governed by the Constitution itself and not the liberal zeitgeist. But alas, out-of-control and unaccountable judges have made Cruz's amendment a necessity.
Once Cruz's amendment is introduced, it will instantly be the defining issue in the 2016 presidential campaign. There will be no other. In the pro-family community, support for Cruz's amendment will be the litmus test for every single Republican candidate for the Oval Office. No Republican candidate for the presidency will have a prayer of getting the support of the conservative base if he does not enthusiastically support Cruz's amendment.
The campaign to enact Cruz's marriage amendment, which will begin the moment the Court announces its opinion, will be the battle of the ages. There will be no other battle. Passing it will be the rallying cry for every pro-family organization worthy of its name and every Christian church worthy of its name.
If a Ted Cruz had been around in 1973, to propose a similar amendment regarding the sanctity of life, American history in the decades since may have been much different.
Well, we do have a Ted Cruz today, and he is offering the United States a way to protect the sacred institution of one-man, one-woman marriage, and a way to protect and preserve the Constitution and the founding principle of self-governance at the same time.
It's time to armor up. Let the battle begin.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
