This post shouldn’t really need to be written, but given current events, it must be written.

As readers know, the US Supreme Court will soon hear arguments on whether states have the right to forbid homosexual marriages. Increasingly, federal judges are imposing their radical view that such marriages must be allowed in states which have voted (by legislative or public vote) to ban homosexual marriages. While federal judges ruled in favor of states rights to decide such matters in some federal appeals court decisions, most federal appeals courts have ruled the other way (see first link). Many expect the states’ right to ban homosexual marriages to be scrapped by the US Supreme Court. If that happens, it is my view that hosts of deceased US Supreme Court Judges would be “roiling over in their graves” if they could know any US Supreme Court would be capable of such a radical and non-Constitutional decision.

The US Supreme Court is to uphold the US Constitution in matters that come before its bench. So the obvious question is: What does the Constitution’s own language say on this issue? The US Constitution’s language is unmistakably clear. Let’s examine the key provision. The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, part of the original Bill of Rights, states succinctly and clearly that “The powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” (emphasis added). The founding fathers of the USA were suspicious of any federal government gaining too much power so they included this amendment to make sure the federal government could not meddle in areas that were not specifically enumerated to the federal government in the US Constitution. No powers over marriage-definition were enumerated to the federal government in the US Constitution.

I challenge readers of this post to actually read the US Constitution to see if it grants to the federal government any right to decide what constitutes a “marriage” in the states within the federal union. Anyone will easily see that the US Constitution grants no such powers of any kind to the federal government and its judicial branch to have any role in determining what constitutes a “marriage” in any state within the union. This being the obvious case, the 10th Amendment then decides this issue in a very plain manner. Its language means that since the US Constitution gives no right or role to the US federal government (or any of its branches) to determine what constitutes a marriage, this issue is a matter that is to be decided by each state. This is how the entire history of the USA has looked at this issue until recently when radicalized federal judges began to issue rulings to impose on states a viewpoint that homosexual marriages must be recognized by the states. These radicalized federal judges have issued such rulings even though the US Constitution is devoid of any language giving the federal government the right to determine what constitutes a “marriage” in the states. Thus, each state is sovereign in its right to make its own determination on this subject. Liberal states can legalize homosexual marriages and relationships if they choose to do so by legislative action or a public vote. Conservative states are free to forbid or criminalize homosexual marriages or relationships if they choose to do so by legislative action or a public vote. That is the clear “law of the land.” Anyone can see it as the US Constitution is very clear on this issue.

However, in the view of radical liberals, they don’t want conservative states to exercise their Constitutional rights on marriage-definition, so they have used radical judicial decisions to compel conservative states to recognize marriages that those states have chosen not to legalize. In doing so, it is actually the radical federal judges who are making lawless decisions, in my view (and, I might add, in the views of the federal judiciary from the founding of the US Republic until now). If the US Supreme Court’s majority abandons its collective obligation to “protect and defend the Constitution” by affirming the non-Constitutional rulings by leftist federal judges to compel conservative states to have liberal laws they do not want, then we have reached a dangerous point in the history of the US where the “rule of law” is collapsing. If this happens, there will be a tremendous erosion of the credibility of the US federal government in the eyes of many millions of its citizen voters.

Already, we see signs of this beginning to occur. The second link details the arguments of the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court that affirms much of what I’ve stated above in this article. He cites the 10th Amendment as clearly stating that “all power not delegated to the United States is ‘reserved to the states…or the people’.” This is really easy to understand in plain English. Indeed, this issue is so easy to understand from a Constitutional viewpoint in my reading of it that any suit to compel states to enact marriage laws they choose not to enact should be thrown out of court as a frivolous lawsuit. The Alabama Chief Justice warns that “when the imaginative opinions of federal judges conflict with the plain language of the Constitution, utter chaos and disorder result in our society.” The third link reports that South Carolina is also considering measures to void the applicability of any lawless US Supreme Court ruling on this subject. Expect more states to consider such measures if the US Supreme Court rebels against the US Constitution’s plain language and creates a “legal fiction” that the federal courts have jurisdiction over internal state definitions regarding what constitutes a marriage. If liberal states want to legalize same-sex marriage or legalize marriages between people and their favorite pets and trees, that is their right. If conservative states want to maintain the definition of marriage being a heterosexual-only union, consistent with the views of virtually every human society in history, that is their right.

If the US Supreme Court deliberately and overtly ignores the plain language of the US Constitution in its ruling on this subject, the rule of law in the USA is dying. Perhaps the US Congress, run by Republicans, can then pass a law that requires all states to recognize only heterosexual marriages. After all, if the Supreme Court ruling gives the federal judicial branch a right it never had before, then the US legislative branch assumes that same right as well. President Obama might veto such a law, but all Democrats in Congress will then have to go to record voting for homosexual marriages when they face the voters next time if they vote to support Obama’s veto. Democratic candidates better hope that the US Supreme Court issues a Constitutionally-based ruling that marriage-definitions are the sole purview of each state. If the US Supreme Court issues a radical and non-Constitutional decision, the Democrats may face unprecedented voter rage at the next election.

The fact that “homosexual marriage” could even be considered in the USA (or in any nation) is a sign that the latter days, prophesied in the Bible, are definitely here. Isaiah chapters 1-5 is a prophecy about conditions within the latter day tribes of Israel. Isaiah 3:9 foretold that latter day Israelite societies would degenerate to the point that “they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not (KJV).” Yes, a “gay rights” movement for the latter days in Israelite nations was prophesied in the Bible, and God is clear where he stood on the issue. That same verse continues: “Woe unto their soul! For they have rewarded evil unto themselves (KJV).” Isaiah 3:12 quotes God as telling latter-day Israelite societies: “they which lead thee cause thee to err (KJV).” If the US Supreme Court’s decision rebels against the plain language of the US Constitution and imposes a radical leftist definition of marriage on all states whether they want it or not, Isaiah 3:12 will have been fulfilled right before our eyes in the modern USA.

One more thought. I am a literalist in applying biblical prophecies to the modern world, unless the context clearly favors a metaphorical meaning. Revelation 11 prophesies that God will finally get so angry at the world’s nations because of their sins and rebellions vs. his laws that he will empower and send Two Witnesses who will wield such unprecedented Divine power that they will be able to “smite the world with all plagues as often as they wish.” That is carte blanche power! When they appear on the scene, they will decide who they want to plague and what plagues they will impose upon them. Their decisions will not be subject to appeal. Revelation 11:5 prophesies that if anyone tries to harm them, they will incur an immediate death penalty on themselves. The language of this prophecy indicates that the Two Witnesses will be the ultimate, global “Supreme Court” on the issue of homosexual marriage (and all other issues). They will decide the issues, and they will be able to impose terrible plagues on people who resist their orders. The final human-led governmental system on the earth is called in Revelation’s prophecies the “beast” power. The political leader is called the “beast” in some prophecies. Don’t envy this person. The plagues that this leader’s “seat” of power will be hit with will be so painful that the beast’s leadership will “gnaw their tongues for pain” (Revelation 16:10).  I’ll bet that some of the plagues sent by the Two Witnesses will be this bad. With Divine power (and hosts of unseen angels) to enforce their orders, the Two Witnesses will be able to decide any issue on the earth in whatever manner they wish and assess penalties for non-compliance in whatever way they wish. Many of their plagues will likely be made retroactive to the times prior to their arrival. Current world leaders should tremble at this prophecy’s warning. But they won’t. However, they will in the future when the Two Witnesses are unleashed by God.