Loss of Religious Freedom

At the risk, of some readers of my post, missing the message I wish to convey, I am concerned about the loss of Religious Freedom.  I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, nor do I wish to go down the road of saying what will happen soon.  However, I can see the direction our leaders are taking us, and I am concerned.  My concern is not so much what has been happening in the secular world but in the spiritual world.  So, I am sharing this with the hope the message is received as intended.

Under the 10th Amendment, there is a separation of federal and state powers.  The federal government does not issue a marriage license nor does the state issue a marriage license, it is issued by the county.   If under the new ruling of the Supreme Court, the county clerk must issue a marriage license base on the 14th Amendment under the Equal Protection Clause which requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.  Will marriage requirements be established by the federal and taken from the state control? (This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation, and for many other decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.) If the Rowan County Clerk is in violation of the ruling of the Supreme Court and must comply, then marriage is no longer sacred but secular and controlled by Federal rather than State law.  

As the battle over marriage continues, it will only be a short time before State laws banning polygamy may be unconstitutional, since they are based primarily on moral grounds. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Lawrence v. Texas which might have some bearing on polygamy. The case involved two homosexual males who had been convicted of same-sex behavior in private. At the time, this was a criminal act in Texas. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority stating: 

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Their right to liberty under (the Constitution) gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government...[They] are entitled to respect for their private lives...The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime...In our tradition, the State is not omnipresent in our home...Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct." 

Justice Scalia wrote that the majority Justices pretended that they have left enough freedom:

"... so that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada...Do not believe it...[The majority opinion] dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned." 

He also wrote that laws against bigamy, adultery, prostitution, bestiality, and obscenity were susceptible to challenges. The immediate effect of this ruling was to overturn anti-sodomy laws in 13 states. But the long-range consequences of the decision may well extend far beyond the activities of gays, bisexuals, and lesbians. Justice Scalia and many other constitutional authorities have suggested that this decision makes it impossible for states to establish or enforce laws criminalizing behavior if the only basis for the law is that the activity is considered immoral by most of its citizens. In short, states can no longer legislate what may be regarded as Christian morality. 

Justice Kennedy's statement might be interpreted as implying that American citizens have the right to engage in various behaviors "without the intervention of the government” even including the choice of more than one spouse. States may no longer be able to criminalize polygyny and polyandry -- one woman marrying more than one man. 

As we have seen with the Supreme Court ruling regarding same-sex marriage, the federal government can and does infringe upon the rights of a state in respects to what constitutes a legal marriage law.  Although it has not been tested in court, the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage is to be recognized in all states, one need only to substitute same-sex marriage with “polygamous” or your choice of immoral sexual behavior to see what is going to happen next.