Mike Wittmer

tertullus

Last night our family read Acts 24, in which the lawyer Tertullus brought this charge against Paul:  “We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him” (v. 5-6).

I thought this was particularly poignant given the events of the day, and when I told my kids that the Supreme Court had in so many words ruled that we’re being hateful if we say marriage is only between a man and a woman, my oldest said, “That’s not true.”

Exactly. There does seem to be some hate on the other side though, so much that some are losing their minds. Last night I watched The Daily Show to see what they would say about the ruling, and I cringed at the godless insanity that permeated its opening two segments. They did a bit on Wendy Davis’ filibuster in Texas in which they made light of abortion, referring to it as a way to “clean up the mess after the accident that comes from a one-night stand,” so “the woman doesn’t have to live with the consequences of her action” (this is my paraphrase from memory, but it’s roughly a direct quote). They thought it was funny because while they were speaking directly of the Texas legislature’s attempt to change the official record of their vote, it was also a double entendre about abortion.

It takes a special kind of mind to make fun of killing babies, but according to one of the leading voices in our culture, that is apparently where we are today. God help us.

Update:  Marvin Olasky cites Scalia’s chilling dissent, explaining how the Court has said that traditional marriage defenders are hateful bigots.

Posted

in

by

mikewittmer

Tags:

Comments

5 responses to “tertullus”

  1. JW

    I realize that the same sex marriage debate does raise some issues regarding religious freedom, but can you explain how the relatively narrow rulings from the Supreme Court yesterday could be characterized as “ruled that we’re being hateful if we say marriage is only between a man and a woman”?

  2. mikewittmer

    Read these columns: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/justice-kennedys-contempt-93473.html
    and http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/06/26/waiting-for-the-other-shoe-the-supreme-court-rules-on-same-sex-marriage/

    The reasoning is that the court ruled that “The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law [DOMA] here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states.” It also states that the purpose of DOMA was “to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage” today.

    So to oppose same-sex marriages is to “demean” and stigmatize them. Scalia’s dissent noted that the majority opinion declared it was “irrational and hateful” to oppose same sex unions.

  3. tertullus | Don’t Stop Believing | GalacticSlackerHQ

    […] from: tertullus | Don’t Stop Believing. […]

  4. jotapê

    In Brazil the average mentality is not much different, even though gay marriage and abortion are still illegal. But, unfortunately, as the pressures from many groups increase, I think this is a matter of time. Recently, the congress has been trying to approve a set of laws called the “statute of the unborn”, to protect the unborn babies, and they’re being heavily criticized for that. Many people were against, including some feminists that called the fetus “a huddle of cells”. As you said, God help us.

  5. Gary

    JW: the text below is taken from Judge Scalia’s dissenting opinion, in which he quotes various excerpts of from those judges who decided that Sec. 3 of DOMA are unconstitutional:

    “But the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose” (ante, at 25) “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” ibid.; to “impose inequality,” ante, at 22; to “impose . . . a stigma,” ante, at 21; to deny people “equal dignity,” ibid.; to brand gay people as “unworthy,” ante, at 23; and to “humiliat[e]” their children, ibid. (emphasis added).”

    I would suggest that words such as “malice,” “demean,” disparage,” “injure,” et al. used by the liberal Supreme Court judges in their majority opinion are tantamount to ascribe a posture of hate toward the defenders of traditional marriage.

    And among proponents of gay marriage, I frequently hear them describe supporters of traditional marriage as “hateful” and “bigots.”

    Sounds like a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: