Powerful Conservative Brief Warns U.S. Supreme Court Of God's Wrath Regarding Homosexual Marriage

( [email protected] ) Apr 10, 2015 02:35 PM EDT
Gay Marriage vs. Traditional Marriage
Thousands of people who gathered at one end of the National Mall March 26 in support of traditional marriage took their message to the U.S. Supreme Court as they walked and held aloft placards with signs saying: “Kids do best with a mom and dad.”

A powerful brief filed by the firm of William J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys at Law and the U.S. Justice Foundation on behalf of several Conservative groups carries serious warnings about what could happen to the religious freedoms of the United States and the reality of God's wrath if the Supreme Court chooses to impose same-sex marriage on all states.

In over 30 states, voters have chosen to defend marriage as only between one man and one woman. However, the U.S. Supreme Court may soon rule against these states, striking down bans on gay unions and officially changing the traditional definition of marriage nationwide.

"[Our] 48-page legal brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court this past Good Friday was designed to explain to the court that traditional marriage is an institution ordained of God. As such, traditional husband-wife marriage is not subject to being revised by a majority of the elite lawyers from Harvard, Yale, and Columbia who are now serving on the U.S. Supreme Court," explained Eugene Delgaudio, President of Public Advocate of the U.S., Inc., one of the many groups behind the brief.

The brief first explains why the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to mandate homosexual marriage, and how judges who personally support homosexual marriage are determined to "misuse their limited power to interpret the Constitution as though they had full authority to amend the Constitution to change its meaning."

A constitutional right to homosexual marriage, the lawyers explain, could supersede the religious freedom of churches, ministries, Christian schools and colleges, and these entities "would be placed in jeopardy of losing their federal tax-exempt status."

In return, the loss of federal income tax-exempt status "could lead to loss of contribution income, and forfeiting of church properties to pro-homosexual charities," the brief says. In addition, it goes on, "criminal penalties might be imposed on church leaders. In Idaho, two pastors recently were threatened with fines and jail time unless they performed homosexual marriages at their wedding chapel."

The brief also provides an ominous warning about the consequences that can come upon a nation that violates God's Biblically-mandated laws regarding marriage.

Focusing on the nature of the homosexual movement and how it constitutes "a reversion to pagan ways of thinking,"  the legal brief notes that sexual categories once limited to heterosexual and homosexual have now been expanded to include more than 50 gender options, as defined by Facebook, and that "some consider pedophilia to be a legitimate sexual orientation, returning us to the pagan pederasty of ancient Greece."

With the court affirming same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, the lawyers warn that culture will soon entirely reject morality. "Television no doubt will become even more pro-homosexual," the attorneys argue, "making it more difficult for persons adhering to traditional values to live their lives and raise their children in an increasingly debased culture."

"In this brave, new, homosexual-friendly world," they go on, "every licensed professional would be required to embrace the new orthodoxy, to bow down to the idol of 'non-discrimination,' or be cast out of his profession. People who first claimed only to want tolerance of their behavior will allow no toleration for other views."

In defending the brief, Delgaudio notes that it is the text of the U.S. Constitution that is the Supreme Law of the Land, not what Courts say the Constitution means. "The Courts have been wrong before, such as in the Dred Scott decision, and the people have refused to follow their wrong decisions," he explains. "Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot assume that the states and the people will sit back and watch the foundations of the nation be destroyed because they want homosexual marriage."

In the week since the brief was filed, several of the consequences of homosexual marriage discussed in that brief have already come true, Delgaudio notes.

"Christian-owned businesses have been under concerted attack simply because the owners want to run their businesses by the principles of their faith. And, some have urged that churches lose their tax exemption if they do not change their doctrine to support homosexual marriage. The coercive agenda of homosexual activists has been on full display."

He concludes, "Congress and the states should also take positive action by passing religious liberty protection legislation to curtail the abuses being done to Christian businesses under the guise of 'hate crimes' laws."

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on April 28 and rule in June.