I was reading one of Dr. Dennis Cuddy's latest articles and he makes a startling statement.
"The U.S. Supreme Court on June 26 ruled that part of the federal 'Defense of Marriage' law denied equal protection to homosexuals. The problem is that is actually a religious view."
Cuddy goes onto point out that years before - in 1961 - the Supreme Court ruled on the TORCASO v. WATKINS case in which secular humanism was actually declared a religion and he notes that the recent ruling by the SCOTUS that says the law denies equal protection to homosexuals is a secular humanistic one. In essence then, what we end up with "is the imposition of a particular religious view (secular humanism) on the rest of the nation. Thus, the Supreme Court's decision is itself a violation of its own separation of church and state doctrine!"
Trending: How Could Stanley Ann Dunham Have Delivered Barack Hussein Obama In August Of 1961 in Hawaii, When Official University Of Washington Records Show Her 2,680 Miles Away In Seattle Attending Classes That Same Month?
Of late, the SCOTUS and their rulings leaves a lot to be desired. They are questionable at best and a complete stretching of meaning of the original verbiage. I'm not a lawyer or a judge but I do have some semblance of common sense. Because of that, I can see that the ruling regarding the individual mandate of Obamacare is likely very wrong. In spite of what the SCOTUS says, can they really force people to purchase something?
Moreover, with their recent ruling on DOMA, one wonders if they thought this all the way through. Do they realize, for instance, that by saying there the federal government does not have to enforce DOMA, they have opened the door to a person being allowed to marry more than one person? If the federal government is under no compunction to protect marriage between one man and one woman, then obviously, just about anything goes, doesn't it? Who is to say that polygamy is then wrong? Who is to say that a person cannot marry their dog?
I truly do not believe that the SCOTUS thought this one through thoroughly at all, so intent were some of the justices to ensure that homosexuals be allowed to marry, not merely have civil unions. They have, as Dr. Cuddy stated, essentially contradicted themselves by not refraining from violating its own separation of church and state doctrine. This, rather than simply leaving the door open for homosexual marriage, knocks the door completely off the hinges so that anything goes. Whether it is at that state or not now, it clearly can be moved to that state in future rulings.
If I consider the history of the SCOTUS and some of the justices that were appointed over the years, it is fascinating to consider the fact that justices like Blackmun were appointed by Nixon. Blackmun paved the way for Roe v. Wade as well as other cases. What does this tell us of those in Congress or the presidency who are allegedly "Republican" or "conservative"? It tells us either that they are not as they would have us believe, or they have little control over things (as in the case of the president).
It would appear that if we go back to Woodrow Wilson, we see the specific marks of Marxism on the federal government. This Marxism ignores the Constitution, while pretending loyalty to it. I think most people living then were completely oblivious to the Marxist leanings of the Wilson administration and other administrations that came after it.
What we've seen over the years is a concerted effort on the part of the elite to establish themselves as the master puppeteers who, from behind the scenes, direct the affairs of America's government. This has brought us to the point where little by little, the US Constitution has been chipped away so that today, the rights that we thought we had are in question. What was once done in the shadows is now done quite openly and most of us are left reeling from the efforts of the left.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.