Attorneys: Attacks on people of faith to increase
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
The battle in defense of natural marriage and its adherents doesn’t stop with last week’s Supreme Court decision that found a constitutional right to homosexual “marriage.” That’s the opinion of several conservative legal minds.
There’s much work yet to be done, says Jonathan Saenz with Texas Values.
“This overrides the votes of over 50 million voters,” he tells OneNewsNow. “You know, the freedom to democratically address society’s most fundamental institution is essential to ordered liberty – but the court has taken that freedom away from the people.”
Saenz notes that Texas has passed a law that will protect pastors, their staff, and their facilities from homosexual activists – and he believes that statute ought to be mimicked by other states. But in the meantime, he adds, protections need to go forward.
“Similar religious protections for others are necessary because I think we can expect that the attacks on people of faith are sure to increase,” he warns, “because supporters of redefining marriage will no doubt try to use the government power in this decision to punish people who should be free to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.”
Legal attacks not over
In its decision, the Supreme Court did call for the protection of religious and non-religious people who hold the view that natural marriage is only between one man and one woman. Saenz isn’t the only constitutional law expert who believes that’s not enough protection.
Attorney Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute, tells OneNewsNow the protection outlined in the ruling isn’t specific enough.
“This will not stop progressive, pro-homosexual marriage activists from furthering their agenda through litigation,” says Dacus. “And the transgender movement, I’m sure, will be very inspired as well and encouraged to further their agenda in the courts following this decision.”
He says marriage has never been the number-one objective of homosexuals. Instead, according to the PJI founder, the objective has been to force, not convince, society to accept their lifestyle. Dacus provides an example:
“Unfortunately, we will likely see this decision only empowering many in public education and public school teachers, for example, to push this agenda and this indoctrination in the public schools across the country,” he laments.
Dacus suggests that ought to be a major concern for parents with children in public schools.
So … how did we get here?
In light of the high court’s ruling on marriage, Dr. Michael Farris, chancellor of Patrick Henry College and the Home School Legal Defense Association states: “Christians blew it.” He explained his remarks on American Family Radio on Monday.
“Back in the mid-90s, there was a meeting at the Dallas-Fort Worth airport of [a group of top social and Christian leaders] that later became the Arlington Group,” the attorney shared. “I laid out – with unfortunate accuracy – the exact path of how we were going to get [where we are now].
“Lawrence v. Texas had not yet been decided yet. The law was on our side – and I said, ‘We’re going to end up with the Supreme Court of the United States ruling marriage is a constitutional right.’ The consensus of the room was this: Mike, we’ve got a solution in search of a problem. When the problem gets acute, then we’ll deal with it.”
He went on to say that societal change occurred – and nothing was done. “Through the constant drumbeat of the media and the elites, we changed,” said Farris. “So, we blew it. We had our opportunity back in the day, but we decided to compromise, we decided to delay and we are now living with the consequences of it – and the question is, ‘What do we do now?'”
Long, tough road ahead
One attorney fears it will take a long time and concerted effort to undo damage done by the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision on same-sex marriage. Doug Wardlow with Alliance Defending Freedom says Christians and their leaders will have a strong role to play in turning the situation around.
“The most important thing for churches and pastors and religious organizations to do is to all the more boldly proclaim the truth about marriage and not be cowed by this decision,” he states. “This decision is contrary to God’s law and should not be seen as an obstacle to proclaiming God’s truth about marriage.”
In short, says Wardlow, pastors, Christian business owners, and individual believers must remain firm in their beliefs over the long haul.
“It is imperative to proclaim the truth about marriage so that we can rebuild a strong, vital marriage culture,” he urges. “And one day perhaps [we can] amend the Constitution and alter what the court has done.”
Others suggest strongly that political candidates take a stand for natural marriage, voters put them in office, then those in office create and pass a constitutional amendment to protect natural marriage and send it to the states for ratification.