In our democratic system of government, a law has one legitimate meaning, and one meaning only, and that is the meaning that was given to it by those who made it a law. It’s a simple rule, and it’s not difficult to understand. Anything else is a perversion of democracy.

Unfortunately, we now live in an America where that perversion of democracy takes place routinely behind this magnificent edifice, where a handful of people with no respect for the rule of law slink around in black robes and decide for themselves which laws they will allow the people to enforce, and which they will simply throw out because THEY do not approve.

When Chief Justice John Marshall said it was the duty of the courts to declare the meaning of the laws, he did NOT say, and he did not MEAN, that the courts were free to rewrite them, to pick and choose among them based on their own personal prejudices and whims. But that is what now happens behind these doors.

James Madison and George Mason would not recognize the document that this Court calls our Constitution today. What our Founders called abominable “crimes against nature,” this Court has called a constitutional right. What our Founders considered the unconscionable murder of innocent, preborn babies, this Court now considers a birthright. If you don’t like your baby, feel free to rip it out, because this Court has found for you a constitutional right to do so, lurking somewhere in the penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights.

George Washington told us we should pray to God for guidance and wisdom before every public meeting; the Courts now tell us that to do so is a thing of evil — offensive to our constitution, and forbidden to our elected officials. To honor fallen soldiers with a cross or a Star of David is no longer a proper memorial: it has become, somehow, an impermissible establishment of religion.

And sadly, my friends, we are now perhaps only days away from this Court telling us that holy matrimony between one man and one woman, ordained by God in the Garden of Eden, recognized by countless societies over countless years as the most efficient unit of civilization known to man, is now merely a relic of a bygone age, no longer worth saving. Indeed, I fear this Court will go farther than that, and say that the people of America are constitutionally FORBIDDEN from preserving traditional marriage as the cornerstone of our civilization.

This is a state of affairs that would have been UNIMAGINABLE to Madison, or Jefferson, or Adams, or Washington. Indeed, it would have been unimaginable for Lincoln a century later, and even for my own father, yet another century on, who fought in Europe and in the Pacific to preserve a Constitution that, quite frankly, no longer exists. It has been completely rewritten in the last fifty years, turned on its head to mean the opposite of what its Founders clearly intended.

Scripture speaks to these times. The Proverb tells us that “[h]e who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both an abomination to God.” Is this not precisely what this Court now does? Does it not exalt the homosexual and the atheist and the abortionist above the interests of the believers amongst our citizenry? Those who harbor traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs in matters of morality are now firmly in the crosshairs of our judicial system.

This is not the work of the Founders: it is the work of the judges and justices who have hijacked our democracy, and it is time for us to take it back. Lord Acton warned us that “[p]ower tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Well, that absolute power has indeed corrupted many of the justices who lurk behind these doors. They devote themselves to a life of wandering about, looking desperately for a seemingly endless array of constitutional rights hidden so deeply in the cracks and crevices and penumbras of our Constitution that they take centuries to be discovered — by enlightened jurists like Sonia Sotomayor, a completely undisciplined judge with a pedestrian intellect whose sole qualification for the Court was that she is a Puerto Rican female.

The sad truth is that while liberal Congressmen and Senators stand firmly behind their crusading, left wing activist judges, we simply do not have enough truly conservative Congressmen and Senators willing to support the more principled jurists, and actively fight the judicial radicals who have hijacked our democracy. Political courage is always a rare commodity. Many who claim to be conservative look upon social and cultural issues more as a grand inconvenience than as an opportunity to take a stand. If they defend challenged legislation at all, they do so half-heartedly, and secretly pray not that they be used as a vessel for change, but that the courts will take the sticky issues from them, so they won’t be asked to take a stand.

My friends, there ARE things you can do about this. Support the organizations you have heard from here today. Stand up and be heard. Be always accountable for your beliefs. Do NOT be intimidated by those who call evil good, and good evil. Speak your mind in your churches, and at work, and at play. The Congress has considerable political tools at their disposal to help the people resist the tyranny of the judiciary; we must elect officials who have the courage to use them.

Elect to Congress men and women who have the fortitude to hold this Court responsible for the acts of violence it commits against the constitution, and against the people. Demand the impeachment and removal of arrogant, defiant judges who abuse their lifetime appointments. Insist that your Congressman and Senators support legislation that would remove jurisdiction from the Courts to hear appeals in areas where they have outrageously and continually overstepped their authority — bills like Representative Steve King’s “Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act.”

And most of all, PRAY — while it’s still constitutional to do it. Pray as our forebears did so earnestly on their knees. Ask God to give you the wisdom to know what’s right, and the courage to stand up for it. Pray that this this country will turn from its wicked ways, that we halt our descent into cultural madness, and once again seek the face of God.

Kay Daly is the former North Carolina Republican Party spokesman who won the American Conservative Union’s prestigious Ronald Reagan Award at the 30th annual CPAC.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Last week I asked: Are opponents of same-sex marriage just rehearsing the same kind of bad arguments used in past decades to oppose interracial marriage? Are Christians who defend biblical sexual ethics relying on dogma or irrational prejudice? Are we engaged in hate speech when we argue the following?

What we mean by “marriage” includes by its very nature the union of a male and female. Same-sex marriage is simply impossible.

Raising same-sex unions to the same level as real marriage amounts to a legal fiction.

Forcing citizens to recognize and even participate in such weddings violates their civil and religious rights.

Destabilizing the very nature of an already fragile institution, the family, harms the most vulnerable members of society, helpless children and the poor.

Destabilizing the very nature of an already fragile institution, the family, harms the most vulnerable members of society, helpless children and the poor.

Does saying all this put us in the same moral sewer as racists who claimed that interracial marriage was unnatural, unhealthy and bad for society? If so, we deserve to lose. We deserve to face the choice that NY Times columnist Frank Bruni wants to impose on Christians: Change your doctrine, or go out into the wilderness with what’s left of the white supremacists. Your institutions will have to comply with the new status quo, or you will have to go rogue — lose legal protections, face fines and even jail time, lose tax exemptions and accreditation, and be treated by your country with less respect and tolerance than we grant Islamist imams who favor sharia law.

So let’s examine those old, bad arguments against interracial marriage, and contrast them with the reasons offered by defenders of natural marriage.

In the scholarly paper, “Miscegenation, Eugenics, and Racism: Historical Footnotes to Loving v. Virginia,” Paul A. Lombardo collected representative legal rulings issued by highly educated judges in support of bans on interracial marriage. They make for bracing, painful reading. While it’s often amusing to troll the exploded scientific and political ideas of the past, there’s nothing funny about the widespread acceptance of pseudo-scientific and pseudo-Christian racism. Such superstitions helped white supremacists such as the Klan keep in place unjust laws against interracial marriage, and gave eugenicists such as Margaret Sanger ammunition in imposing forced sterilization in a dozen U.S. states.

Advocates of same-sex marriage claim that our arguments against it are no better grounded, no morally different from these. Well, let’s gather them up and explain exactly why these racist arguments fall flat, and compare with them the reasons for defending natural marriage. Shall we? Below I’ll just give representative fragments of the larger arguments, which you can read for yourself in Lombardo’s paper.

Racist Argument #1

“[T]he off-spring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate, and … they are inferior in physical development and strength, to the full-blood of either race.” (Scott v. Georgia, 1869.)

There is simply no evidence for this. In fact, it was the practice of inbreeding — whereby aristocratic white southern families preferred to marry close relations, even first cousins — that produced genetic defects. Anyone who has ever paid the vet bills for a pure-bred dog knows this much nowadays. Biologists speak of “hybrid” vigor, of the genetic advantages of “exogamy,” of crossing different strains within a species.

By contrast, same-sex marriage produces no offspring, not because of any medical problem among the partners, but by its very nature. It is not and cannot be fertile. So in one key respect, the biological, the verdict of science is clear: Interracial marriage is natural, and same-sex marriage is not.

Racist Argument #2

“The laws of civilization demand that the races be kept apart in this country.” (Doc. Lonas v. State of Tennessee, 1871.)

This is simply an unsupported assertion. Whose “laws” and whose “civilization”? Many flourishing civilizations allowed for intimate contact among different races. The Roman Empire, various vast and wealthy Muslim kingdoms, the Spanish and Portuguese empires — while they were often unjust in many respects — allowed for the free intermingling of people of different races, and extensive intermarriage. In fact, the idea of identifying “races” and keeping them “pure” is quite a modern one, dating back no earlier than the English conquest of North America.

By contrast, every human society of which we have any record regards the union of man and woman as the primary unit of society. None, not one, has ever recognized same-sex unions as the equivalent of marriage — no, not even ancient Greece.

Racist Argument #3

“[W]hom God hath joined together by indelible peculiarities, which declare that He has made the two races distinct.” (Green v. State of Alabama, 1877.)

In other words, God intended to create distinct races, and forbade them to interbreed. In support of this assertion, some Christians cited Old Testament passages that prohibited the Israelites from mixing their seed with the Gentiles’. But the Old Testament itself makes it perfectly clear that the difference between Jews and Gentiles was religious, not biological. Jews were not to marry pagans who worshiped idols and practiced human sacrifice. Pagans who converted to the worship of God were welcomed in, and no barriers whatsoever were placed to their intermarriage with the children of Abraham. For this reason, the Catholic church always declared that interracial marriage was perfectly moral — though in certain social conditions, it might attract persecution and therefore be inadvisable.

By contrast, both the Old and New Testaments unambiguously condemn erotic activity between people of the same sex. No Christian church or Jewish synagogue accepted same-sex unions until the 1980s, and those that changed their positions didn’t do it because of new “scholarly” discoveries, but because they were adjusting their doctrine to follow secular mores.

Racist Argument #4

“The purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of our cherished southern civilization require that [the races] should be kept distinct and separate. …” (Kinney v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1878.)

This is mostly empty rhetoric, contradicted by the facts. Cruel laws that forbade slaves from even marrying each other, and the practice of breaking up families and selling off wives and children, helped shatter the black family in North America — while in South America, awful as slavery was, slave marriages were conducted in church and families couldn’t legally be split. Nor were public morals improved by the intrusion of laws that required racial segregation — serving as constant temptations to cruelty on the part of whites, and resentment among oppressed blacks.

By contrast, heterosexual marriage is based entirely on the encounter with the other, on the need to accept, accommodate and learn from the profound differences between the sexes. It is now primarily social conservatives who insist that the sexes are real, grounded in humans as among other animals in the facts of mammalian biology. Many advocates of same-sex marriage, on the other hand, have accepted the unhinged assertions of “Gender Theory,” which pretends that one’s gender is a social and psychological figment, an empty construct. That’s why, at last count, gender theorists claimed to have discovered some different 50 genders — you can pick any one of them now on Facebook.

Racist Argument #5

“[I]f the issue of a black man and a white woman, and a white man and a black woman, intermarry, they cannot possibly have any progeny. …” (State of Missouri v. Jackson, 1883.)

The judge here had read some crank scientific opinion asserting that people of mixed race had fertility problems, and therefore mixed marriages should be banned. There was no real evidence for this.

By contrast, no defender of natural marriage wants to ban unions of older people, or sterile people. Nevertheless, we recognize that marriage exists first and foremost for the sake of children. Protecting their well-being is the main reason the state has an interest in regulating marriage. And solid psychological evidence suggests that same-sex marriage in fact hurts kids, that “emotional problems are more than twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents.”

So there is no resemblance at all between objections to same-sex marriage and those to “miscegenation.” In fact, the people relying on cultural prejudice, ideology and outright pseudo-science are all on one side of this issue: the pro-same-sex marriage side . . .

See Part One of this analysis, “On Marriage, Are Christians No Better Than Racists?”

(See “Race-Mixing and Sex-Mixing”, originally posted HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.