Is the Supreme Court the God of Marriage?

As you read or watch my column this week I will be at the United States Supreme Court with my Pastor and family to show my support of God-ordained marriage between one man and one woman.

marriageWe at Institute on the Constitution also participated in the case currently before the Supreme Court with an Amicus Brief that respectfully warned the court of the certainty of God’s judgment upon a society that would attempt to redefine His holy institution of marriage.

That we need to define marriage to the modern American culture is, itself, a tragic and regrettable circumstance.  For most of American history, this would have been unnecessary because the Words of Jesus Christ as recorded in the 19th Chapter of Matthew, were well known and understood:

Ted Cruz 2016


Have you not read that He Who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

You might call this the “Since-the Creation-of-Humankind” definition of marriage, or the “Before-the-Foundations-of-the-Earth” definition of marriage or the “Settled-in-Heaven-for-All-Eternity” definition of marriage.

Or you might just call it “THE” definition of marriage.

Woodrow Wilcox


God_rulers_right_wrongNow to attempt to change that which is eternal and forever fixed by the Creator is to do nothing less than make the claim that you are God.  This is very wrong and very dangerous, and the Supreme Court of these united States is now considering taking this very same dangerous step.

While there are many conclusions that can be drawn as we witness this cultural degradation, one comes most immediately to my mind.  When a culture discards the Word of God as the standard for what is right and what is wrong, and relegates these determinations to fallen men, the results are as predictable as they are terrible.

In the time of the founding of America, when a Biblical worldview was predominant in the American people, this connection between following the commandments and peaceable existence was clearly known, easily understood and evidentially experienced in the American culture.  Undoubtedly, living prosperously by living righteously is what Jefferson meant when he used the phrase “pursuit of happiness”.

Psalm Two warns that when the judges and the rulers of the earth throw off God’s law and take it upon themselves to make their own rules for right and wrong, they will be dashed to pieces like a rod of iron striking a clay pot.

Regrettably we seem to be setting ourselves up for this very lesson.  Unless our government officials start obeying God and stop “playing god”, this is a lesson we will experience fully.

Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Jake MacAulay serves as the Chief Operating Officer of the Institute on the Constitution (IOTC), an educational outreach that presents the founders’ “American View” of law and government. The former co-host of the syndicated talk show, The Sons of Liberty, he is an ordained minister and has spoken to audiences nation-wide, and has established the American Club, a constitutional study group in public and private schools.
Jake MacAulay
View all articles by Jake MacAulay
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly


  • retiredday

    Thank you for taking a stand. Acts 1:8 records Jesus saying, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

    Now, at this juncture in history, we are his witnesses. So, why do so many Christians remain silent? And what kind of witness is silence anyway? If the Supreme Court countermands the God of the universe, then to which will you submit? To me, it’s a no-brainer. It’s God’s way or the highway to hell.

    What good is believing anything is true unless you are willing to live and die by it?
    “Do you really believe that what you believe is really real?” — The Truth Project

  • Chuck Anziulewicz

    No, the Supreme Court is not the “God” of marriage. Since the United States is not a theocracy, “God” has nothing to do with this issue, especially since there are just about as many personal, subjective concepts of “God” as there are people.

    If the government still considers “marriage” to be a religious designation rather than a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution. If, as confirmed by its actions, the government believes “marriage” to be a legal contract, it has no business denying that contract to any two unrelated adults, no matter what their gender might be.

    • DCM7

      “‘God’ has nothing to do with this issue, especially since there are just about as many personal, subjective concepts of ‘God’ as there are people.”
      You’re going along with the old myth that “God” is whatever people think he is. You don’t want to face a Creator who actually has the nerve to be real AND greater than you are.

      “the government believes ‘marriage’ to be a legal contract”
      As I’ve said before: If you can appeal to nothing higher than law — law which can be changed, law which can be unjust, and law which you only even respect when you personally agree with it — then you may as well not be trying to appeal to anything higher than your own preferences.

      • Chuck Anziulewicz

        Since you’re obviously so chummy with God, maybe you can get Him to hold a press conference.

        • Bob Ellis

          You could know God and be “chummy” with him, too, if you’d simply admit that you’re a sinner who doesn’t meet your Creator’s standard, throw yourself on his mercy and ask him to change you. That’s what all of us have had to do, in order to get to know him. Then you can be “chummy” with him through the Spirit. “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)

          You could do that today, if you would only humble yourself. Will you consider humbling yourself before your Creator?

          • Bob Ellis

            Interestingly, just a few minutes after I gave you this invitation to meet your Creator, I was listening to the latest podcast by my favorite theologian and thinker Ravi Zacharias, and he quoted the conversion story of C.S. Lewis, a former atheist who became one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the 20th Century:

            “I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape? The words “compelle intrare,” compel them to come in, have been so abused be wicked men that we shudder at them; but, properly understood, they plumb the depth of the Divine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation.”

            For all of us who have come kicking and screaming into the Kingdom, finding it hard to bend that proud knee, we can testify: oh so true.

        • DCM7

          Interesting how your only response is a bit of snarky sarcasm that doesn’t attempt to address any actual points made.

          • Chuck Anziulewicz

            DCM7: If I a dollar for every time a bit of snarky sarcasm, personal insult or insinuation, or anti-Gay epithet had been thrown at ME over the years, I could’ve paid off my mortgage by now. And trust me, I’ve been the target of some pretty nasty rhetoric.

            • retiredday

              In the end, it’s all about you, isn’t it?

            • DCM7

              I don’t doubt anything you say there. I was mainly just observing that you didn’t really respond to any point I made.
              I’m not big on giving insults, epithets or nasty rhetoric myself. I consider it counterproductive. But I do know this: getting genuinely unfair treatment because of something doesn’t automatically make that something acceptable.

            • Thisoldspouse

              Snarky sacrasm is the hallmark of an intellectually bereft argument.

        • retiredday

          Who would listen to such a press conference? Certainly not you, and most of those who see this issue through secular lenses. The media would twist and spin everything God said. They do it all the time. God has already held his press conference. It’s recorded in the Bible. But by your words you prove yourself a mocker. With your attitude, nothing you say merits society’s concern. What you apparently haven’t figured out yet is that since you don’t respect the Biblical position, why should we respect your narcissistic position? In the end, it’s all about you.

          “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.” Psalm 1:1-2

    • Bob Ellis

      No, they definitely aren’t the God of marriage, or anything else. But they threaten to set themselves up as God.

      And no, the U.S. is not and never has been a theocracy. However, since God established the institution of marriage for the entire human race at the beginning of creation, God has everything to do with marriage. Our nation was founded on the recognition of the authority of the Law of Nature (otherwise known as Natural Law) and Nature’s God; if you don’t believe me, look it up in our nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence.

      Since the state has an interest in justice and protecting the most helpless members of society (i.e. the children who are the product of marriage, and who benefit most from the health of that institution), the state has an interest in ensuring children are protected by protecting the integrity of the institution of marriage. As we know from 6,000 years of human history, marriage is more than a simple “legal contract,” and that it can only be formed by a man and a woman. Anything else renders the institution meaningless, and and undermines the aforementioned stability and integrity.

      Logically, the state has an interest (even an obligation, if it is interested in justice and having a healthy civilization) in protecting marriage, and not attempting to redefine something it has no authority to redefine, and cannot practically redefine even if it wanted to.

  • franklinb23

    The State constructs all sorts of things that don’t exist in nature: powers-of-attorney, living wills, business contracts, estates, etc. It makes no moral judgments about the nature of the relationship of the people in question. It simply serves as an adjudicator for and enforcer of those contracts.

    If this was just about marriage, that would be one thing. What you also seem to want to do is block any ability of gay couples to form any legal partnership whatsoever if it has a modicum of a semblance to civil marriage. You object when a company offers “domestic partner” benefits to gay couples. I wonder if you’d invalidate even POAs for a gay couple if you could. You want to the State to, in essence, single out gay couples for special scrutiny by the law and treat them as less than not just heterosexual marriage but EVERY other relationship that can possibly exist.

    That is what bothers some of us.

    • Bob Ellis

      Unlike powers of attorney, living wills, business contracts, estates, etc., marriage can and usually does result in the creation of a new human life, and provides the best and really only adequate environment for the development of that growing human life. Even with its God-originated foundation aside, it is a completely unique institution unlike any of the other contractual states you cited. That is why it needs protection from the barbarians.

      I don’t think anyone seeks to stop homosexuals from entering into legal partnerships. If they want to leave property to one another in wills, or establish powers of attorney, hospital visitation rights, etc., I don’t know of anyone who is trying to stop that.

      But “civil unions”, “domestic partnerships,” etc. are nothing but facsimiles of marriage designed to counterfeit marriage, which is why I and insightful Americans have opposed them all along. Those flimsy constructs have been nothing but a stepping stone to the ultimate goal: the full-fledged counterfeiting of marriage under the very name of “marriage.” They were and remain nothing but a vehicle to move the homosexual agenda closer to the goal, aimed at people too weak-minded to recognize the correlation and the ultimate goal. They are nothing but another notch on the stove where the temperature is slowly raised on the frog in the pot.

      If homosexuals want to enjoy the benefits of marriage, they need to find a marriage partner subject to the same requirements as the rest of us and marry them. Until they do, they have not formed a marriage, and can only counterfeit the genuine article, which demeans and devalues the genuine article.

    • retiredday

      “They want to the State to, in essence, single out gay couples for special scrutiny by the law and treat them as less than not just heterosexual marriage but EVERY other relationship that can possibly exist.”

      This is pure narcissistic nonsense. No one is singling out gay couples, except the gays themselves. Marriage is, by our Creator’s definition, a relationship between a man and a woman. This has been the accepted norm forever and is well established in the history and jurisprudence of not only our nation and of Western Civilization, but for most of the rest of the world as well. History shows that nations which accommodate homosexuality are inviting their own demise.

      The act of according homosexuals the right to “marry” one another singles gays out for a special right, which requires the very definition of the institution be changed. They are demanding something that was never designed for them nor is it appropriate for them to enjoy.

      Because they are demanding society accept their sin and redefine the institution of marriage, they are not simply wanting to change man-made laws, they are trying to force society to go along with something God has called an abomination. They are the ones singling themselves out by claiming sin is not sin and demanding society change its laws and values in order to honor their deviant relationships.

      They are rebelling against God, denying that he exists, or if he does exist that he blesses their self-absorbed lifestyle. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of same sex marriage, it will be an in-your-face affront to God. Except then it will not simply be the individuals who are sinning, it will be the whole society that condones their sin. Then God’s judgement will be on all our heads.

      Forgive them. They don’t know what they are doing. Have mercy, Lord.

      • franklinb23

        “Then God’s judgement will be on all our heads.”

        You make God sound like that drill instructor from Full Metal Jacket. The fat boy ate a donut, so he punished everyone else by making them do push ups so they’d retaliate on their own terms.

        If God is incapable of punishing individuals for the things they do and can only take general swipes at large swaths of a population, He is, by definition, neither omnibenevolent nor omnipotent .. and probably not omniscient.

        But perhaps you were just using hyperbole?

        • Bob Ellis

          When large swaths of a population perpetrate evil, it only makes sense that a large swath of a population will face judgment and the natural consequences of embracing that evil. And a large swath of a population seldom perpetrates evil, without an even larger swath of a population turning a blind eye to it or condoning it. That makes the culpable segment of society even larger. And because simple dynamics dictates that when a major portion of society is corrupt, and has brought judgment and consequences on itself, even the innocent remnant who tried to stop it will face the secondary effects of that (e.g. if a nation faces economic, military or other losses because of its corruption, the good people of society can’t help but feel that loss because the bulk of their country faces a loss). Even if love of fellow man or love of God aren’t enough to motivate good people to fight evil, that unfortunate reality should be a motivator for good people to get busy.

          • franklinb23

            Secondary effects, yes. The problem is the notion of collective guilt. I’m not responsible for American slavery because I’m white. The notion of God actively punishing some for the misdeeds of another is equally as incoherent and unjust.

            “Even if love of fellow man or love of God aren’t enough to motivate good people to fight evil …”

            In my consideration of what is ethical (or not), I usually am thinking of whether there is an infliction of unwarranted suffering or pain on an individual or whether the act involves malice. Theft, adultery, murder, rape, even the demand for sex without consequences or responsibility … all these are rationally deemed unethical by this standard.

            Same-sex marriage where two partners are committed to each other? I’m not sure how. I have a friend who has been partnered for over a decade. They have taken into their home the abandoned children of a woman who was incapable of raising them. Not that it matters, but the children are black, and we know that white parents often want white children. My friends are white and took them in, nonetheless. She had these children with several men (all of whom are in prison). They are giving these kids something their biological parents were not going to give them: a chance at an actual life.

            If there’s immorality here, you need to explain it to me, because I don’t see it. They’re not molesting the kids. They’re not “indoctrinating” them into anything. The kids are assumed to be heterosexual and are being raised as such.

            • Bob Ellis

              No, you’re not responsible for American slavery because you’re white. Also because it ended 150 years ago. And as I explained, God doesn’t actively punish the innocent for the sins of others, but sometimes the sins of others-especially when done in great magnitude or in close proximity-cause the consequences to wash over on the innocent. That is the fault of the perpetrators, not God.

              Yes, malice is at least as often if not most often the cause of suffering. But often simply placing one’s own desires ahead of the welfare of others (even if “justified” in one’s own mind) can bring suffering (and even simply turning a blind eye to injustice or immorality, which is fully passive). It doesn’t always take malice or intentional action to constitute harm or wrong.

              When I was a drunken, promiscuous hell-raiser, I never had sex with a woman who didn’t completely want to have it with me. Yet I was doing them harm by taking advantage of whatever motivation they had for having irresponsible sex with me. I was placing my short-term satisfaction ahead of their welfare.

              Any time we partner with someone in doing something wrong, even if both agree on that action, we are still doing wrong, and we are still doing harm to that other person. If we truly had their welfare as our priority, we would be encouraging them to do what is right, not assisting and encouraging them in doing wrong.

              Since homosexual behavior is immoral (every religion in the world agrees that it is), counter to science and biology, anatomically improper and often harmful, and extremely unhealthy, participating with another person in those acts is doing harm to them just like I did harm to those women I had premarital sex with.

              And when you add the institution of marriage/family/children to the equation, it only becomes worse. As virtually every reputable study for decades has shown, the best and only adequate environment for a child is with its biological mother and father (and counterfeit marriage demeans and devalues this environment). Failing that, a child should be placed with a responsible married man and woman, so that healthy, balanced child care and interaction between the sexes can be modeled and modeled. Placing a child in a home with two homosexuals deliberately robs the child of either a mother or a father, in addition to distorting their view of the value of both sexes, and how the sexes work together to compliment one another.

              Anything less than doing all we can to ensure children grow up in a home with a loving mother and father is putting our own short-term selfish needs ahead of the child’s welfare. And that’s immoral.

        • retiredday

          I was hesitant to respond to you because of Proverbs 26:4, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.” But for the benefit of anyone else who might read this, no, I was not using hyperbole, and it is not I who am making God sound like anything. It is the Bible that reveals the truth about God.

          In the Song of Moses, God speaks, “See now that I, even I, am he and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.” (Deuteronomy 32:39). That is why Scripture tells us the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.

          But God is merciful and just. That is why he sent Jesus to pay the price for our sins. But in order to receive forgiveness and eternal life, you need to receive Jesus and believe in his name. This offer is called the Good News because anyone who comes to him, repents and invites him to be his Lord and Savior, he will accept. He loves you, like no one else, warts and all.