By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on cprworldwidemedia.net
The sun did indeed rise in the east this morning regardless of the ruling by the Supreme Court that same sex marriage is now legal in all 50 states and I drove around town yesterday…AFTER the ruling…and failed to notice even one pillar of salt.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supremes decided that the same LEGAL standing…the same LEGAL protections and the same LEGAL benefits are to be extended to same sex married couples as are extended to opposite sex married couples.
It’s not the end of the world though you might have a different impression if you browse social media posts which include everything from the sky is falling to this is the end of our nation and the end of times.
Equal protection under the law has always been a hallmark of our Constitution and of our country although there are obviously some out there who believe those equal protections should extend only to those exactly like them.
Among those who are most distressed over the ruling are those who claim that this is an assault on religious freedom.
They are wrong in that interpretation as the ruling says nothing regarding nor does it interfere in any with religious precepts, religious doctrines or religious interpretations regarding marriage.
I’ll get back to that point shortly but before I do…
Allow me to express the part of this Supreme Court ruling that I do find very distressing 
and judging by the dissenting opinions penned by 4 of the Justices…so too do they.
By issuing this ruling as they did, the Supreme Court negated the individual state’s rights to determining their own path on this issue. The issue of same sex marriage IS a social issue and one that SHOULD have remained at a state level when it comes to whether or not any individual state issues a marriage license to a same sex couple.
Our Founders and Framers were clear regarding the separation of powers and social issues have always been adjudicated either by state legislatures or by a vote of the people at that level.
What, in my opinion, the Supremes SHOULD have done is extend the legal benefits and legal protections to same sex couples who marry in a state that issues such licenses to follow those couples should they either travel to or move to any other state whether or not the state issues same sex marriage licenses.
Such a ruling as THAT would have been in holding with the Constitution all the way through 
but, in usurping the state’s rights, I believe the Supremes have moved from a legal evaluation of the law all the way to legislating the law from the bench…something which our judicial system should be barred from doing as per our Constitution.
Okay…that said…let me now get back to the religious aspects of this ruling.
As stated above, the Supremes said NOTHING regarding the religious end of the argument. They did NOT rule that ALL churches in ALL 50 states must now perform same sex marriages…they ONLY ruled on the legal protections and legal benefits as equal protection but…if you think it’s NOT going to come up…think again.
I assure you that the LGBT…the militant wing of the gay “community” is hatching plans to push THAT as their next agenda item and rest assured…not all gay people want that to happen.
What will happen is that selected gay couples, selected by the LGBT as gay “community” 
organizers or agitators will, very soon, target churches where they know for a fact that the churche’s doctrine does NOT allow the officiating of a same sex marriage….just as they have targeted pizza parlors and bakeries…and when they are told that the church will not perform said marriage…lawsuits will be immediately filed.
Just as our Constitution is quite clear regarding state’s issues…it is also quite clear regarding religion.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
IF such a law, that ALL churches and ALL members of the clergy in ALL 50 states be mandated to perform same sex marriages REGARDLESS of religious tenants, doctrine or precepts were to be enacted, it SHOULD, via the Constitution, be passed first by Congress aNd, if there is a Constitutional question regarding it, which in this case, clearly there would be, THEN it should go to the Supreme Court where…IF the Supreme Court is FOLLOWING the Constitution…the law would be struck down.
As we have seen from THIS Supreme Court decision…those IF’s loom large however, there IS a way to greatly leverage the Supreme Court AWAY from making such an unconstitutional ruling in the future.
2016 is THE key.
If we, as Conservatives, Republicans, TEApublicans or whatever fail to elect the Republican nominee…leaving the White House to the next liberal/socialist occupier…guess who 
will be appointing the next Supreme Court Justices?
That’s right…someone who will be all about negating our Constitution and especially our 1st Amendment…the Amendment that clearly states that our government is banned from making any law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.
This brings about the need for a multi-pronged plan of action for 2016.
As I have stated several times before…leading into the primaries…get out there and campaign, donate or work for the candidate of your choice but…after the primaries, if your one and only candidate is NOT the Republican nominee…get behind whoever IS the Republican nominee even if you have to utilize a clothes pin on your nose.
If we SPLIT the vote in November 2016…a liberal/socialist who will nominate liberal/socialist judges at the federal and Supreme Court levels WILL be elected.
Next, we must double down on our efforts to elect the most CONSTITUTIONAL candidates to the halls of Congress as it is the president who will NOMINATE those judges but…CONGRESS who will CONFIRM the judges.
Why CONSTITUTIONAL rather than the most CHRISTIAN?
Because…while it is perfectly okay, at least for now, to allow the BIBLE to guide you through life…it IS the CONSTITUTION that is the law of the land. Remember…it is the CONSTITUTION that protects our religious freedoms and not the other way around because, while we are a nation of laws and a people of many religions or brands of religion…there is only ONE law that governs this nation and THAT law was ratified in 1793.
Only by NOT splitting our vote and only by electing the most CONSTITUTIONAL candidates to congress can we preserve the 1st Amendment’s rule that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.”
Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling regarding same sex marriage is not the end of the world nor the e
nd of the republic but…allowing a liberal/socialist to sit in the oval office past 2016 and appoint liberal/socialist activist judges WILL put an end to the republic as well as an end to ANY and ALL chances for those who believe that their and ONLY their brand of religion trumps all to see to it that GOVERNMENT doesn’t make their beliefs illegal and punishable.
Gay people are NOT the biggest threat to the stability of our nation or the republic…regardless of what those making videos and begging for $250,000 to buy a vehicle say…another liberal/socialist in the White House appointing liberal/socialist judges…IS.
REMINDER!!!
TODAY, Saturday, June 27th, on RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on CPR Worldwide Media, 
from 11am to 1pm EST, Craig and Diane will discuss the two SCOTUS decisions recently handed down, and the flap over the Confederate flag that has now extended way beyond any sensibilities.
Hope you can tune in:
http://cprworldwidemedia.net/radio
And chat with us live at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/cprworldwidemedia/
I disagree R. C. J. If what you are saying is correct then why do they add:“……..or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” Why did they bother to add this? I believe this was added because there were no candidates of age to run for president that were natural born. Natural born is a child born of two American Citizens on United States soil. The intent was to ensure no foreign allegiance. Why would you want to intentionally go against the rule of law? Who says we have a good candidate in the R party anyway? They have sold us out and so why vote for any of them? Why not vote for the Constitution Party candidate? Also, it is of great importance that an individual votes their conscience. Had voters not deviated from that truth in the first place and allowed party allegiance to usurp constitutional allegiance, this strategical voting would not be a problem as it is today. I will vote my conscience.
Colleen…Your “Conscience” must be telling you to do everything you can to see to it that a socialist gets elected…again.
Where I disagree involves the matter of whether the SCOTUS had the jurisdiction to even consider this case at all. By all accounts, the Constitution limits areas where the SCOTUS should become involved; and “marriage” and laws governing it are not one of them. By essentially redefining a term “marriage,” the concept and understanding of which has been around longer than the written word, the SCOTUS has “set the table” for a lot of “mischief.” We have already seen how hate has won in Oregon with a 135K judgement againt a couple who wouldn’t bake a cake that celebrated the “marriage” of two lesbians. And then a gag order was placed on them to prevent them from talking about the situation. (If that’s not a violation of their 1st Amendment rights what is?) Trust me, the cases will come…using “the right to marry who you love” argument; and the courts will have a more difficult time denying polygamous “marriages” and unions formerly deemed taboo (mother-son, father-daughter and first cousins of either sex).
Should we elect a Republican in 2016, or should we elect someone who will honor our Constitution? Hopefully, we will not be faced with such a terrible choice. Hopefully, the Republican candidate will be someone who meets our constitutional eligibility requirements, a ‘natural born citizen’. If the Constitution is not important to the Republican Party, I will have to think twice before I support a Republican candidate.
R.C J.,
It seems to me that you and other LIKE you, are trying to INVENT reasons to split our vote in 2016 with the goal being to put yet another SOCIALIST in the White House.Our Constitution says “Natural Born” but it never offers a definition of Natural Born and, in fact, the ONLY definition of Natural Born to come from the era of our Founders and Framers was THEIR definition written by the 1st Congres of the United States into the Naturalization Act and by that standard…both Cruz and Rubio ARE eligible.
I have asked many MANY people to offer their proof that Rubio and Cruz are not eligible and they all fall back on three things…Vatell’s book…a book which is meant to lay guidelines as to how to preserve a EUROPEAN MONARCHY and a book which is not the law of our land…They cite a small handfull of Supreme Court cases where NBC is mentioned…IN OPINIONS ONLY as NO case regarding NBC has EVER been brought to the Supreme Court and thirdly…I have been told over and over again, by people who swear neither Rubio or Cruz is eligible that THEY know what the Founders…INTENDED…and therefore, neither is eligible to serve as president.
Oh really…They know what the founders INTENDED…just like Chief Justice Roberts claims HE knows what CONGRESS intended and in both cases…NBC and Obamacare…we have the actual words they wrote that PROVE otherwise.
Why you would want to intentionally invent ways to split the vote, if you are indeed a Conservative, is beyond me but that seems to be your aim and the aim of others but you are not fooling tose of us who have researched the NBC situation. Not fooling us at all.