For the left wing, the Supreme Court is God

There is God's law and the law of men.  The Supreme Court was instituted to interpret the laws of men at a time when it was universally accepted that the truth of the sacredness of innocent life and the unique significance of man-woman marriage were settled in God's law.  Such purely spiritual questions needed only to be recognized and upheld by the laws of men.  With Justice Kennedy's opinion in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, the Supreme Court has taken another a leap forward in filling the God-vacuum of secular progressivism by becoming independent of the written words of the Constitution.

Most of the left wing are secularists and are affirmatively indifferent to God's authority.  Reference to spirituality notwithstanding, across the spectrum of the left, from the aging pro-choice liberal to the full-on socialist progressive, the left cites and relies on the shifting pronouncements of secular law as the highest available authority of life.  For them, the rulings of the Supreme Court have functionally replaced scripture.

But for the Supreme Court to serve as substitute for a Supreme Being, its decisions must be self-authorized and independent of man's law.  This is why the Constitution had to be transformed into a “living document,” ever changing and fluid, like etheric clouds floating above dead words from the past.

The Roe v. Wade opinion represented a bridge between the Supreme Court as interpreter of secular law in a godly nation and Almighty Reckoner in a secular society.  This happened not only because the Court rejected the divine image of human life, but because that belief is so insupportable to the Constitution that the Court had to tortuously extract a filament of the Fourth Amendment right to protection from search and seizure to concoct a connection between the purely spiritual question of the sanctity of life and the laws of men.  In the Obergefell v. Hodges opinion, Justice Kennedy made scant effort to connect to the Constitution at all.  He tethered what is everywhere referred to as a “soaring” opinion with gossamer threads to an ephemeral equal protection guarantee.  His opinion immediately broke free from the Constitution and floated away to high heaven above.

God exists independent of creation.  To replace Him, the Court must exist independent of the Constitution.  It now opines from on high, as Justice Kennedy just did.  But there's a problem.  God does not sanctify same-sex marriage, because He doesn't have to.  It involves sin, which serves no purpose for procreation.  However, in the Obergefell ruling, the Court is paralleling God's natural law with anti-natural law.

Or perhaps not.  Perhaps God was a myth all along, and the left wing has cleared things up at last.  Man's law is finally established as the highest authority regarding marriage, on par with God, and all should be forced to religiously obey it.  In which case Justice Kennedy deserves a really big raise.

There is God's law and the law of men.  The Supreme Court was instituted to interpret the laws of men at a time when it was universally accepted that the truth of the sacredness of innocent life and the unique significance of man-woman marriage were settled in God's law.  Such purely spiritual questions needed only to be recognized and upheld by the laws of men.  With Justice Kennedy's opinion in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, the Supreme Court has taken another a leap forward in filling the God-vacuum of secular progressivism by becoming independent of the written words of the Constitution.

Most of the left wing are secularists and are affirmatively indifferent to God's authority.  Reference to spirituality notwithstanding, across the spectrum of the left, from the aging pro-choice liberal to the full-on socialist progressive, the left cites and relies on the shifting pronouncements of secular law as the highest available authority of life.  For them, the rulings of the Supreme Court have functionally replaced scripture.

But for the Supreme Court to serve as substitute for a Supreme Being, its decisions must be self-authorized and independent of man's law.  This is why the Constitution had to be transformed into a “living document,” ever changing and fluid, like etheric clouds floating above dead words from the past.

The Roe v. Wade opinion represented a bridge between the Supreme Court as interpreter of secular law in a godly nation and Almighty Reckoner in a secular society.  This happened not only because the Court rejected the divine image of human life, but because that belief is so insupportable to the Constitution that the Court had to tortuously extract a filament of the Fourth Amendment right to protection from search and seizure to concoct a connection between the purely spiritual question of the sanctity of life and the laws of men.  In the Obergefell v. Hodges opinion, Justice Kennedy made scant effort to connect to the Constitution at all.  He tethered what is everywhere referred to as a “soaring” opinion with gossamer threads to an ephemeral equal protection guarantee.  His opinion immediately broke free from the Constitution and floated away to high heaven above.

God exists independent of creation.  To replace Him, the Court must exist independent of the Constitution.  It now opines from on high, as Justice Kennedy just did.  But there's a problem.  God does not sanctify same-sex marriage, because He doesn't have to.  It involves sin, which serves no purpose for procreation.  However, in the Obergefell ruling, the Court is paralleling God's natural law with anti-natural law.

Or perhaps not.  Perhaps God was a myth all along, and the left wing has cleared things up at last.  Man's law is finally established as the highest authority regarding marriage, on par with God, and all should be forced to religiously obey it.  In which case Justice Kennedy deserves a really big raise.