I spent my whole life running around, Still let the wind kinda blow me around
…And I traded it in for a whole 'nother world, A pirate flag and an island girl –Kenny Chesney

Do you like Pirates?  I know I do.  I could watch Pirates of the Caribbean over and over again.  Many people who live on the coast have pirate bumper stickers that say Salt Life.  But Pirates have bad reputations because they pillaged innocent people, even though we don’t normally associate them in that way. Usually, we associate them with island vacations where people let go of their worries and play instead of worrying about work. Still, maybe we ought to ban pirates because they didn’t respect the rights of those they pillaged? On second thought, that might make some people very sad.  Pirate aficionados derive joy in thinking about living by their own rules and leaving behind their responsibilities. Pirates are so popular among some groups of people that there are toys, flags, clothing, and even a Talk Like A Pirate Day. Besides, just because some people find pirates offensive, the First Amendment protects free speech, so long as it isn’t inciting people to violence. 

Many people like to buy Confederate Flags and clothing with the Confederate flag logos.  Those who appreciate the flag logo most often associate this emblem with the idea of states’ rights.  The flag was first flown by the Confederacy in the Civil War, a war in which many slave holding states asserted their right to secede from the union, rather than change their economy, which relied on slave labor.  In the beginning, this “war between the states” was about preserving the union.  After fighting for two years, however, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which declared that all slaves in states rebelling against the Union were free, leaving slavery intact in the Border States. Freeing the slaves in the Confederate States became a Union war objective. Although the Confederate States of America wanted to maintain a way of life which included the subjugation of a group of people based on their color, today, many people would agree that not unlike the Pirate Flag, the Confederate Flag has come to symbolize states’ rights, not the subjugation of a group of people. 

Recently, in Charleston, South Carolina, Dylann Storm Roof was charged with shooting nine people at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.  Prior to the shooting, the suspect had been photographed “waving Confederate flags and wearing symbols of racist white regimes, and reportedly wrote of fomenting racial violence.” (The Washington Times) Because he was seen in this manner, many groups are demanding that the Confederate flag be removed from the public square because it is associated with white supremacy and incites people to racial violence.  This is particularly interesting because in many acts of terror, law enforcement agencies are told not to profile, i.e., associate certain clothing or associations as increasing the likelihood of violence.  If a person had committed this shooting wearing a pirate shirt, would there be screams to remove pirate paraphernalia from merchandisers and consider those displaying such emblems as inciting violence?

After the Boston Massacre, when John Adams defended the Red Coats in a Massachusetts Court of law, he explained that because we are a nation of laws and not of men, everyone is entitled to a fair trial.  He and the soldiers he defended, recognized that an unruly mob which was angry about British subjugation of the colonies might not be able to look at the specific events objectively.  They would merge their experiences and punish the soldiers, regardless of the reality.  John Adams was a brilliant lawyer and was able to save the soldiers from what at first seemed to be a certain fate.   In his summation he stated,
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

We would be wise to heed the words of John Adams before the wishes, inclinations, or dictates of passions force the removal of the Confederate Flag from the public square, erasing a symbol of states’ rights at a time when the Tenth Amendment has been completely ignored by the Supreme Court in recent rulings on Obamacare.  Freedom of speech is one of the first freedoms.  There is no freedom not to be offended.  And the meaning behind symbols and of words cannot be changed just to fit a political agenda. 

When you think about it, both flags could represent subjugation or freedom.  Yo ho, yo ho, A Pirate’s life for me.

Now that the Supreme Court has redefined what marriage means, what exactly was gained by those who may now participate in same-sex marriages?  According to the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, by participating in civil marriage rather than a civil union, same sex couples are afforded many more legal protections.  To begin, marriages are respected across the 50 United States.  As in heterosexual marriages, partners can also file for divorce.  Because of federalism, same sex partners can now benefit from joint federal /state programs and receive tax and public benefits for their families.  They will find it easier to fill out their status of married or single on official documents.  Finally, they will achieve equal, not separate but equal status in our society.

As citizens in this country, certainly same sex couples are entitled to these rights which are available only with a certificate of marriage. Wouldn’t the logical thing to do be to differentiate between a traditional marriage and a civil marriage? Civil marriages by a judge or civil servant are recognized by all 50 states and afforded the same tax and public benefits as a religious ceremony. And both require marital licenses.  Many heterosexual couples choose not to be married in a church because none are in accordance with their beliefs so this is not a new precedent. 

So the question I have to ask is, “Why did the Supreme Court feel compelled to redefine the word marriage, as understood by non-secularists, instead of simply saying civil marriages should be accessible by same sex partners across the 50 states?  Had they simply cited precedent to affirm the idea that all citizens should have access to a license permitting a civil marriage, those practicing a particular religion and abiding by a particular system of beliefs would not now be compelled to practice their religion as dictated by the U.S. government.  Clearly, by telling churches who they must marry or worshippers what they must believe, the Supreme Court has violated the separation of church and state.  The repercussions of this ruling have far reaching consequences; there will now be government interference in parenting, in non-secular institutions of learning, and in private organizations run by people in accordance with their religious beliefs. This ruling is in violation of the 1st Amendment.  Whether you are for or against same sex marriage is not at question here. The goal of marriage could have been achieved without the government elevating one set of beliefs over another.

How can this be resolved?  If the Legislative Branch of government had the stomach for it, they would begin impeachment against the Supreme Court judges who showed such contempt for the rule of law in this country.  Meanwhile, Jonathan Merritt writes in, “If the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage in 2015, how will evangelicals respond?”

If the court were to “redefine marriage,” Moore [Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention] said Christians should “be ready to offer an alternative vision of marriage and family” that doesn’t include same-sex unions. Interestingly, his vision would be promoted primarily within the church rather than changing laws through political action.

As I pointed out in Majority Rules in Judicial Activism,

An easy way around this is to leave religion and marriages to the churches.  We simply must stop expecting government to legislate morality. Morality begins in the home. As the 1st Amendment is written,  

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

This first freedom is a fundamental right, one which is to be protected by our government. If the judges who committed this violation of this fundamental right are not themselves brought to justice, state legislatures need to start exercising the powers reserved to the states.  Following the example of Alabama, Alabama Senate Passes Bill to Effectively Nullify All Sides on Marriage, whose legislature introduced Senate Bill 377,

SB377 would end state issued marriage licenses, while providing marriage contracts as an alternative. It passed through the Alabama state Senate by a 22-3 margin on May 19;

The intent or motives behind this bill are a moot point. By removing the state from the equation, no one can force another to accept their marriage, nor can they force another to reject that person’s own beliefs regarding an institution older than government.

“Licenses are used as a way to stop people from doing things,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “My personal relationship should not be subject to government permission.”

Michael Suede explains in, “Marriage Licenses Are A Racist Crime Against Humanity,”

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

With the 14th Amendment, no states should have even had the authority to outlaw such marriages, let alone license them. At the very least, such a practice would have gone the way of separate but equal during the civil rights movement.  Instead, federal government expanded this power to license, over all marriages. The government took this power in 1923.  Michael Suede continues,

In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

Michael Suede has a very strong opinion about this practice.

Being granted permission to marry someone by a gang of criminal thieves is the lowest form of submission to State authority a plebe could ever engage in.

He suggests his readers follow his lead and, “reject the notion that the State has the authority to sanction [my] marriage.

I am inclined to agree.


AL Update