American Minute with Bill Federer: DisRespect for Marriage: FLASHBACK to when Democrats defended Man-Woman Marriage; and a Warning of the Collapse of Civilization

On September 21, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):

“I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position.”

He added:

“The word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

This wording became Public Law 104-199, § 3(a) (110 Statute 2419), September 21, 1996:

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress … the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

In 2000, Hillary Clinton stated:

“Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”

When Barack Obama first ran for Senate against Ambassador Alan Keyes, he told the Windy City Times, February 2, 2004:

“I am not a supporter of gay marriage … I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community.”

In 2006, Obama declared:

“Decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been.”

On April 17, 2008, while running for President, Obama was allowed to make an unchallenged statement at Saddleback Church:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

On November 2, 2008, Obama stated in an MTV campaign interview:

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.”

On Oct. 27, 2010, President Obama wrote in an interview with liberal bloggers:

“I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage.”

The majority of citizens in 30 States had previously voted to define marriage being between a man and a woman, but the Supreme Court invalidated their will in the Obergefell vs. Hodges gay-marriage decision, June 26, 2015.

Then, on December 13, 2022, President Biden invited a non-binary drag queen, Marti Gould Cummings, to the White House to celebrate signing what is being referred to as the “DisRespect for Marriage Act,” effectively repealing the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 and making the liberal Obergefell decision into a Federal law.

The Republican Senators who voted with Chuck Schumer and the Democrats were:

The Republican Representatives who voted with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats include:

These individuals abandoned the Republican Party’s founding plank of 1856 which called for defending marriage as one man and one woman — “to eliminate the twin relics of barbarism: polygamy and slavery.”

Rep. Dan Meuser, PA, wrote in a statement on Twitter:

“This bill goes beyond marriage and weakens the religious freedoms fundamental to our nation.”

Rep. Scott Perry, PA stated: “This bill actually, literally, destroys religious freedom.”

The Obergefell decision, itself, has a cloud of illegitimacy over it, as Justices, Kagan and Ginsburg were obliged to recuse themselves, as judicial ethics predicated, as they were not impartial having both participated in homosexual weddings prior to hearing the case.

Of the decision, Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee stated:

“This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court’s most disastrous decisions …

The Supreme Court isn’t the supreme branch … Five lawyers on the Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature’s God on marriage than they can the laws of gravity …

I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat …

Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court.”

He added:

“This irrational, unconstitutional decision threatens religious liberty — the heart of 1st Amendment. Congress must act … The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being …

The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny.”

Justice Samuel Alito stated:

“Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage … All Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.”

Former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal stated of the Obergefell decision:

“The Supreme Court decision today … tramples on States’ rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution …

Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that … This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.”

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush stated:

“Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the States to make this decision …

In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry stated:

“I’m a firm believer in traditional marriage, and I also believe the 10th Amendment leaves it to each State to decide this issue …

Our founding fathers did not intend for the judicial branch to legislate from the bench, and as president, I would appoint strict Constitutional conservatives who will apply the law as written.”

Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum stated:

“The Court is 1 of 3 coequal branches of government and they have an imperfect record. Stakes are too high to cede marriage to unelected judges.”

Former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker called for:

“… an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the States to continue to define marriage.”

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio

stated:

“I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman.

People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court …

The next president and all in public office must

strive to protect the First Amendment rights of religious institutions and millions of Americans whose faiths hold a traditional view of marriage. This is a constitutional duty, not a political opinion.

Our nation was founded on the human right of religious freedom, and our elected leaders have a duty to protect that right by ensuring that no one is compelled by law to violate their conscience.”

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz stated:

“This is not a typical moment in American history … The last 24 hours at the United States Supreme Court were among the darkest hours of our nation …”

Cruz added:

“This week, we have twice seen Supreme Court justices violating their judicial oaths … I have already introduced a constitutional amendment to preserve the authority of elected state legislatures to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman …

And also legislation stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over legal assaults on marriage.”

Franklin Graham stated:

“The court — since it never defined marriage — doesn’t have the right to redefine it.

God gave us marriage. Period. And God doesn’t change his mind …

“I believe God could bring judgment upon America …

There will be persecution of Christians for our stand …

Churches and faith-based business should prepare for lawsuits and government investigations.

Pastors who refuse to perform gay marriages and preach from the Bible should prepare for hate crime charges. All dissent will be silenced by the government and the activists …

An overwhelming number of Christians will defy the law.”

Graham added:

“I’m disappointed because the government is recognizing sin … This court is endorsing sin … God gave marriage between a man and a woman and that’s what marriage is … If pastors are going to be forced to provide marriage services for gay couples, I’m not going to do it …

I am reminded of something the late Charles Colson wrote: ‘If we’re not willing to fight this, even to the point of breaking the law, or refusing to recognize the law, then we will lose everything.’

Given the choice of obeying God or the government, I believe Christians will obey God — even if there is hell to pay.”

Former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina, who was the first woman to lead one of the top twenty U.S. companies, stated:

“This is only the latest example of an activist court ignoring its constitutional duty to say what the law is and not what the law should be …

I do not agree that the Court can or should redefine marriage. I believe that responsibility should have remained with the States and voters where this conversation has continued in churches, town halls and living rooms around the country …

All our effort should be focused on protecting the religious liberties and freedom of conscience of those Americans that profoundly disagree with today’s decision.”

Justice Antonin Scalia had

stated regarding the 2015 Obergefell decision:

“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy …

Today’s decree says that my ruler, and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court …

This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776 – the freedom to govern themselves …”

Scalia added:

“To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

Lincoln stated in his Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:

“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court …

The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made … the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of the eminent tribunal.”

Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863, that the United States should have a:

“… government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

In 2020, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the Bostock v. Clayton County opinion, which broke from historical legal and moral precedent to add gay and transgendered workers to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Justice Samuel Alito was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in condemning the ruling as a “preposterous” overreach betraying “breathtaking” arrogance in seizing legislative power away from the states and the citizens:

“It is a matter of concern to many people who are reticent about disrobing or using toilet facilities in the presence of individuals whom they regard as members of the opposite sex …

For women who have been victimized by sexual assault or abuse … (it) can cause serious psychological harm …

To force young women to compete against students who have a very significant biological advantage … who have the size and strength of a male but identify as female.”

On Oct. 27, 2010, President Obama signaled in an interview with liberal bloggers that he was preparing to flip-flop on marriage:

“Attitudes evolve, including mine … Part of this is also politics. … This is the latest wedge issue to divide the Democratic Party. And, you know, my interest is to avoid playing on their court on this issue.”

In 2012, President Obama publicly switched to not only supporting gay marriage but punishing States and purging from the military anyone holding the views he held just a few years earlier.

This led many to conclude that his campaign statements were intentional lies, a political “bait-and-switch — lying to the public in order to get elected but then once in office, forcing his liberal views on the country.

This is not new tactic. Political rhetoric has always been the lowest common denominator.

Ambitious politicians want to get elected so they say things that appeal to the largest number of voters, oftentimes deceitfully hiding differing personal views.

This tactic was expressed by Machiavelli in The Prince, 1513:

“The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.”

“A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise.”

“A wise ruler ought never to keep faith when by doing so it would be against his interests.”

“Politics have no relation to morals.”

Machiavelli has been studied by pragmatic amoral politicians, as David Broder wrote in The Washington Post article “The Reformer has Enemies … and Only Lukewarm Defenders,” May 16, 1994:

“A year ago last week, President Bill Clinton gave an interview to several of us from The Washington Post … At the end of the interview, he stood before the fireplace in the Oval Office and recited to us a passage from Machiavelli’s The Prince.

In a hoarse voice, he said, ‘Listen to this: “It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out … than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies … and only lukewarm defenders.”‘”

Talleyrand, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, was notorious for his ability to give political speeches filled with deception.

It is called “obfuscation” — the art of intentionally obscuring the truth.

Talleyrand confided: “We were given speech to hide our thoughts.”

A example of obfuscation was at a NATO summit press conference, December 3, 2019.

As hundreds of cemeteries, churches, and cathedrals were being vandalized, including Notre Dame Cathedral, President Trump asked French President Emanuel Macron if he wanted more ISIS fighters in France.

Marcon gave lengthy, evasive response, after which Trump quipped: “This is why he is a great politician because that was one of the greatest non-answers I have ever heard.”

Vice-President Kamala Harris has employed this maneuver in what has become known as “word salad non-answers.”

The Greek philosopher Plato quoted Socrates in Dialogues, Phaedo (4th century BC):

“False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.”

On August 19, 1785, Thomas Jefferson wrote to Peter Carr:

“He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual;

he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.”

Jesus told the hypocritical political leaders (John 8:44):

“Ye are of your father the devil … There is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

Sir Walter Scott wrote in his poem “In Marmion” (1808, canto VI, stanza XVII):

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!”

The redefinition of marriage and sexual morals has a larger and more devastating societal effect.

Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin published a book in 1934 titled Sex and Culture, in which recorded the results of studying 86 civilizations over 5,000 years.

He found a 100 percent correlation between monogamous heterosexual marriage and cultural advancement.

Conversely, he observed that sexual promiscuity and loosening of sexual restraints inevitably leads to the decline and collapse of a civilization.

As standards of sexual behavior are cut loose from the encumbrances of traditional values, the logical next step is towards arbitrary rules, followed by lawless activity, including:

polygamy, incest, group marriages, trafficking, child brides, pedophilia, bestiality, sex slavery, and unspeakable violence toward vulnerable women and children.

Though presenting itself as an anti-racist organization, Black Lives Matters actually has a radical sexual agenda which most supporters are unaware of.

Founded by trans-activists Alicia Garza, Patrisse Khan-Cullers, Opal Tometi, BLM states on its website (under the heading “What We Believe, accessed 6/26/20):

“We make space for transgender … to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift … trans folk, especially … trans women …

We disrupt the Western prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children …

… We foster a queer-affirming network … with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of hetero-normative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).”

It can be expected that Biden’s new law redefining marriage, passed by Democrats with the help of establishment Republicans, will be taught to children in public schools.

This teaching is different from what Jesus taught in Mark 10:6-9:

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’”

Jesus added a warning in Matthew 18:6:

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

—

Follow on: