JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA’S PASSING - THE FIGHT TO PROTECT OUR CONSITUTION IS NOW OURS.

By Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq. - www.gonzlawgroup.com

Today, America lost one of its greatest heroes. An Italian-American icon dedicated to defending the Constitution with every fiber of his being. A man who recognized the erosion of the family unit in America as the greatest threat to its stability, who understood the Constitution to be a document that, like any other document, should be read and analyzed as expressing the thoughts and values of the authors that wrote it at the time of its writing. A document much too precious to be twisted and contorted to support sentiments and ideologies anathema to the very patriots who poured their hearts, souls and minds into its drafting.

I can’t tell you how many times I thought of custom designing a T-Shirt with his name and likeness on it that I could wear around my law school just to freak my professors out. Every time Scalia was derided during a discussion at law school by the backhanded comment of some confused liberal, my heart was broken. I saw his critics as lost souls, adrift in a sea of legal and logical instability destined to be helplessly marooned on an island of conflict and confusion by their fundamentally flawed ideologies.

Even in his controversial decision on Employment Div. v. Smith, 484 U.S. 872 (1990) which ultimately prompted a religious backlash and evidenced the need for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993), I understood and agreed with Justice Scalia’s much criticized opinion. Justice Scalia penned the Court’s decision in Smith holding that though the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to believe whatever they wish, it does not necessarily protect an individual’s right to act on that belief when doing so violates a neutral, generally applicable state law governing criminal behavior the state has a Constitutional right to regulate though its police power.  In Smith, it was Oregon’s right to regulate the use of an illegal drug (Peyote) for religious purposes. However controversial, his decision in this case demonstrated Scalia’s consistent commitment to protecting an individual State’s rule of law. His steadfast support for state sovereignty and his commitment to limit the scope of the federal government’s ability to interfere with this Constitutional right was invariable.

I secretly shuddered in fear when I envisioned what it would be like to have a Supreme Court without Justice Scalia. But in my heart I was comforted in knowing that Justice Scalia would continue to hang-on, if only to protect the Constitution until a President was elected that would properly select another constitutional originalist to fill his place. He hung on as long as he could, protecting the Constitution to his last breath. We now have the most liberal president in the history of our country poised to submit an appointee to the Supreme Court that will worsen the constitutional imbalance already present in this historically liberal Court.  If ever conservatives needed to erect an impregnable firewall to a potential presidential appointee to SCOTUS it is now.

What is at stake? Let me make it simple for you - the country.  Simply put, SCALIA’S REPLACEMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT WHO THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL BE. The next president’s influence over our country is constitutionally limited to no more than eight (8) years. Conversely, the decisions of a newly appointed Supreme Court Justice will affect us for generations to come. We cannot now allow what Scalia’s life stood for to be lost with his death. The fight to protect our beloved Constitution now passes to you and me.

WE SAW IT COMING FOLKS - CONSTITUTIONAL GENDER CONFUSION

By Rev. Mario Gonzalez, J.D.

Biological males now protected as having a “Constitutional Right” to bathe along with biological females in High School, so long as they “believe themselves” to be female, notwithstanding the presence of a distinctly male organ for all (biological females) to see or turn away from. This is the finding of Federal education authorities in Illinois against an Illinois school district seeking to honor the requests of parents who found the practice disgraceful. It’s only going to get worse unless the Church and other groups rally together and demand equal respect.

Here’s an excerpt from my lecture series on the outcome of the Same-Sex Marriage Decision which foretold of this move. It is part of my section on “The Trojan Horse.” –

“Here’s the problem - Allowing people who identify as gay or lesbian to marry is a question of what the State does. It governs the conduct of state or governmental officials. However, how you treat alleged discrimination against people who identify as gay – is another question altogether. This is a question that addresses the behavior of private actors - business owners, private employers, pastors, licensed teachers, public and private schools, licensed counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists and so on. Now we have a Supreme Court precedent that can be used to force people to act against their religious beliefs by claiming that acting on their faith is a discriminatory act.

As expected, WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE DECISION, the EEOC in a 3-2 ruling (notice how close these rulings are – around 50% are AGAINST) held that discrimination against someone in employment for sexual preference is the same as sex discrimination (an established protected class) and is to be treated accordingly. This law basically proscribes disparate treatment of “similarly situated persons.” It essentially allows enforcement action by federal, state and local municipalities against private citizens, companies, or generally “actors” as an anti-discrimination effort.

By conflating the two issues (the right to marry and discrimination based on an individual’s personal sexual preference and/or preferred sexual identity) and by morally justifying homosexuality in its holding, Obergefell essentially established A NEW CIVIL RIGHT affecting an ever-expanding and as yet undefined group of people (LGBTQ… LMNOP). This decision not only forced states to ignore their democratically adopted domestic relations laws (family law) against the will of the people in those states, but it will now be used to demand equal protection for this as yet undefined group to engage in behavior considered by most as morally unacceptable for thousands of years, such as the unfettered use of restrooms or showers of one's choosing, irrespective of one's biological gender, based solely on a person’s claimed (and unchallenged) psycho-sexual proclivity or identity. This will be allowed and protected by law as a result of this holding irrespective of how morally repugnant the choice might be to others directly affected by it.

In summary, based on this opinion, the Court has not only established itself as the Supreme Court of the land, but as a Supreme entity. It is no longer limited to merely interpreting the laws of the several States in light of the Constitution, but can now apparently confer dignity on what or who it sees fit, making moral what religion deems sinful, finding value in what nature manifests as wasteful, and praising a behavior that historically has served as a consistent marker for impending societal collapse.”Look up the article in the New York times by clicking here

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/us/illinois-district-violated-transgender-students-rights-us-says.html?mwrsm=Facebook&_r=0

THE SUPREME COURT’S NEW CLOTHES

An examination of the Supreme Court’s recent same-sex ruling. 

By Rev. Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq., J.D.

A Fairytale

In 1837 Danish author, Hans Christian Andersen, penned the fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” about cunning swindlers who concocted a scheme to defraud a vain emperor. The emperor was duped into buying a garment hailed as being made from a valuable fabric invisible to anyone either unfit for his position or “hopelessly stupid.” The June 26, 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, came as a result of the use of the same deceptive technique by the LGBT lobby, duping the American public, the media, and now the U.S. Supreme Court into buying a fantasy to our collective shame as a nation.

Contrary to popular belief, marriage equality was not achieved by this ruling. Even before this decision, everyone in America could technically marry. What this ruling actually did was obliterate the definition of marriage, an institution held sacrosanct for thousands of years. It defined the term into meaninglessness. As a result of the ruling, same-sex couples can now enter into an as yet undefined social compact which has no gender limitations and soon will have no empirical limitation, as limiting marriage to two people will be legally problematic based on the legal logic used in this holding.

Government is God

Through this decision the Supreme Court has unilaterally overridden the legislative will of over thirty (30) states. And as in the Obamacare decision that preceded it, the Court here unequivocally solidifies its new standard that words no longer have a definite legal meaning. Words now mean only what SCOTUS says they mean. Based on this opinion, the Court has not only established itself as the Supreme Court of the land, but as a Supreme entity. It is no longer limited to merely interpreting the laws of the several States in light of the Constitution, but can now apparently confer dignity on what or who it sees fit, making moral what religion deems sinful, finding value in what nature manifests as wasteful, and praising a behavior that historically has served as a consistent marker for impending societal collapse.

Justice Kennedy’s “Newspeak.”

Justice Kennedy gives lip service to the virtues of marriage by saying, “It is fair and necessary to say these references [to marriage] were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex.” And that “…reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world still hold this view of marriage.” But his soliloquy makes this irrelevant, as he ultimately uses the Court’s newly found divine authority to label these “reasonable” people as both wrong and biased. In this context he makes an ominous statement:

“Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied.”

This statement essentially excludes people whose opinions are forged by their moral and religious ideals from involving themselves in the legislative process and further proscribes the application of their beliefs to democratically influence public policy. He ‘touts’ religious freedom apparently believing religious communities to be comprised of legal idiots when he says,

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

So basically, religious people can constitutionally believe and teach whatever they want to [even if this Court has deemed it bigoted], so long as they don’t put their beliefs into practice, a right portentously excluded from this statement. Justice Thomas’ response to this ruse is significant, characterizing the majority’s assumption that government confers “dignity” through marriage as nonsensical:

“Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved... [a]nd those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”

He calls out Kennedy’s attempt at deception, quoting portions of the above excerpt and adds,

“Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for ‘religious organizations and persons… as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths’. Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.”

What About Marriage Equality?

Chief Justice Roberts, in his vehement dissent, states, “The majority’s decision [to announce a new civil right] is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.” A person does not find their identity and gain "civil rights" by a pattern of willful behavior. Behaving or feeling a certain way is an aspect of our human experience and does not in itself establish an inherent immutable characteristic. To be “immutable” something must be permanent – unchanging. Being black, for example, is a legitimate constitutional immutable characteristic. Even using the amicus brief actually quoted by Justice Kennedy in support of this Court’s mistaken contention that “sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic,” (yeah, I read it), said “… fully 88% of gay men and 68% of lesbians reported that they had ‘no choice’ [about their sexual orientation] at all.” Based on this Court's own supporting briefs from which it draws its irrational conclusion, 12%, or 1-2 out of 10 self-professed homosexual men and over 1/3 of professed lesbians in the studies feel they have a choice as to their sexual orientation. These numbers do not an “immutable” characteristic support.

That said, the question was never one of equality. The question always was whether an alleged committed relationship between two same-sex parties could legitimately be called a “marriage” and who should decided whether this is so. According to Justice Kennedy, a man who just two years ago in the infamous United States v. Windsor case wrote an opinion that concluded, “[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” and then went on to write, “[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations,” he now has completely reversed his opinion and feels that it is the Federal Government through the divine Supreme Court that should decide what a marriage actually is.

The Court has now unfortunately legally codified a false narrative. Based on strained studies engineered to push an agenda bent on establishing a bogus "civil right" where such a right does not constitutionally exist, we are now faced with a “new” civil right for a non-existent and non-discrete class of people. As a result, people of faith will suffer greatly because of the tsunami of litigation that will follow against those who will dare to refuse to “bow to Baal” (figuratively) by not compromising their deeply held religious convictions. Justices, Judges and City Clerks will likely be fired all around the country if they do not perform same-sex ceremonies they find repugnant to their faith. Religious schools and organizations may also soon be sued and may well loose public grants and ultimately their tax-exempt status as a direct consequence of this ruling, a ruling purportedly aimed only at guaranteeing “equality” for a burdened class.

Chief Justice Roberts issued this chilling warning of impending attacks against people of faith,

“Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution (First Amendment). Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same- sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

In the end, this decision had little to do with equality or the U.S. Constitution and everything to do with a social agenda aimed at vilifying and ultimately mortally wounding all who look upon the sexual behaviors in question as morally wrong. Like the fairy tale, it is all about forcing the American people to recognize and laud a non-existent civil right fancifully displayed by a largely immoral Court. This time it’s America that has no clothes.

SUPREME COURT - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY v. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

SCOTUS, April 28, 2015 - Obergefell v. Hodges – Oral Arguments
By Mario Gonzalez Jr., J.D.

I am a hardcore Mets fan. Stands to reason, in light of the fact that I always root for the underdog. But on occasion during a Mets game, regardless of how optimistic I might have been coming to the game, there comes a point where my team’s lackluster performance causes me to make the decision to leave the game early to beat the traffic. Staying to witness the slaughter is just too heartbreaking. This is exactly how I felt hearing John J. Bursch’s oral argument for the respondent states yesterday.

In a word, his argument was convoluted. Not only so, but it was more than likely grossly ineffective at changing anyone’s mind. Even when Justice Scalia threw Bursch a lifesaver trying to redirect him toward making a case for undergirding historical state sovereignty in regulating marital affairs, Bursch was unable to grab hold of it to save himself. When asked why a fundamental right such as the right to marry (marriage itself flowing from a broader fundamental ‘right to privacy’ implicit in the Due Process Clause, Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)) should be made available to all but one class of people, namely those with same-sex attractions, Bursch wasted valuable court time by hopelessly trying to convince the court that the state’s primary interest in limiting marriage to heterosexual couples was based on the state’s compelling interest in promoting and controlling the nuclear family structure because of issues associated with procreation. Choosing this angle of argumentation to justify what would be the apparent denial of a fundamental right to a particularized group seemed unbelievably shallow and ill conceived to me. Let me say that in English - it was just dumb. As you can expect, the argument was literally gutted by the court, as it should have been. That said, John seems to get it together toward the end of his presentation. Until then, it appears that he had lost the Court. The prudent angle of attack, as hinted at by Scalia, should have revolved around outlining the likely havoc that an equal protection holding based on sexual orientation in this case would indirectly have on the state’s ability to decide its own destiny regarding the control of marriage within its boundaries – a control that they have had since the Constitution was forged and that is now, at least in terms of who can marry, being taken away. The second argument should have been the effect that such a holding would have on a citizen’s constitutionally protected religious liberty interests. The appellants actually publicly conceded that private religious schools could well be denied tax exemption by the holding in this case, should a school’s historic, biblical, and deeply held religious convictions force them to now allegedly discriminate against what would likely then be considered a “protected class” based on same-sex attraction. Beyond that, simply voicing the religious beliefs held by many orthodox religious people of many faiths on homosexuality itself might soon well be regarded as “hate speech” – a form of speech unprotected by the First Amendment – even on a pulpit. In short, religious organizations holding to traditional views on marriage are about to face the challenge of their lives.

As anticipated, the Loving and Windsor decisions were respectively shoved down respondent’s throat. The respondent’s arguments here were so bad that I actually found them really hard to listen to. I mentally got up and went to the imaginary parking lot in my head to beat traffic. A holding in favor of the states here would require no less than an act of God.

THE SECRET FORMULA FOR IMMEDIATE CHURCH GROWTH

You asked and here's your answer. If you adhere to the following simple principles meticulously, you will grow. It's really as simple as that. Jesus is coming soon so we can't waste any more time.

Think ONE-HAND. Five (5) fingers:
(1) Participation (everyone); (2) Training (hands-on); (3) Evangelism (friendship) ; (4) Miracles (expect), (5) People (emphasis - "Feed my sheep/lambs")

1.    Adherent participation | Put Everybody to work - Involved people both feel a part of the church and multiply themselves! This is pivotal. Don't let anyone just sit there. Even a new convert can do something (arrange chairs, help with the food pantry, construction, etc.)

2.    Emphasis on ministerial training. This is best done cyclically - Intellectual/empirical training followed by practical application. People really learn most by doing, so cycle study & practical ministry. Practice what you learned immediately after learning it. Here's the flow (1) study an area, (2) practice what you learned in that area,  then (3) study next area and so forth.

3.    Focus on growth (evangelism) rather than maintenance. The people that you spend the most time "ministering to" are typically the first to leave. They will suck you dry and then go on to kill the next guy. Concentrating on maintenance will stunt growth. "Getting by" is simply unacceptable. The word "maintenance" is not in God's vocabulary. We are called to be "fruitful," not simply to exist. We must line up our actual practices with our objectives. Ask yourself, "Is what I'm doing helping me to DIRECTLY achieve my objective? If not, rethink what you are doing and adapt it until it does, or just stop dead in your tracks and regroup. Keep asking yourself, "What am I here for? What is our purpose? What is my specific part in helping to move the church toward achieving that purpose personally?” You must stay true to your mission. If you reach the lost, everything else will follow. Everything you do (your worship, your word, your teaching) must serve to reach the lost.

4.    Depend on and expect the miraculous. He said, "these signs WILL FOLLOW," not that they "might" follow. People have to get healed and delivered. Public testimonies are essential to growth. People need to see the hand of God. The dragon is overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony. We must emphasize the miraculous. 

5.    Focus resources on people rather than buildings. The building can't outweigh the ministry. Build the church!! The church will take care of the building. We can’t build at the expense of evangelism. 

“ANTI-SEMITIC” IS AN INADEQUATE TERM FOR WHAT THIS ADMINISTRATION IS SHOWING TOWARD ISRAEL - Mario Gonzalez Jr., J.D.

Newsflash – Israel’s interests are America’s interests. Entertaining an agreement with Iran that could result in setting up for a modern-day nuclear holocaust in Israel, being that Iran has made no qualms about their quite public and fervent desire to annihilate Israel, quite frankly goes beyond anti-Semitic behavior.  What the U.S. is demonstrating toward Israel requires a new term - one that more aptly describes the seemingly deep-seated loathing that this President has toward our most faithful ally.

For this administration to say through their politically savvy State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf (now infamously known for her “ISIS needs jobs” solution to the current Islamic genocide we are observing all over the Middle East), that “This is an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue…This is an agreement that doesn’t deal with any other issues, nor should it,” is deeply offensive and dismissive of the love and concern that the United States has toward the people of Israel and its historic commitment to their protection.  Israel’s national interests must be at the very core of any contemplated agreement with Iran. To ignore this fact demonstrates a mindset completely at odds with the sentiments of the American people.

PEDOPHILIA IS NOT A CRIME?

Neither is having homicidal thoughts - that is, until those thoughts turn into a plan. This is how we can arrest people preparing to execute a radical Islamic murderous plot before they actually kill people. Unfortunately, pedophiles don't give us much advance warning before they perpetrate their life altering crimes.

As is usually the case with these academic theorists, they separate the thought from the action and then seek a sympathetic ear for those beset by this criminal mindset. Now it would seem they are going much further. Academics in a recent conference at the University of Cambridge (England) publicly stated, "Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males.” They went on to conclude, “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.” Are you kidding me? If this had been said specifically about gay men the liberal media would have set these people on fire. Some group would doubtless have picketed the university. Yet it appears to be okay to say this about men as a whole, most of which are heterosexual.

When will society come to its collective senses and realize the plot being executed to disparage our moral convictions and vilify conservatives, particularly those in our communities of faith, at the expense of our children?

"This thinking is really a European thing..." Really? Here it is in living color at my daughter's school, Rutgers University, right here in good ol' NJ, U.S.A.. This continues to happen while the Church is comfortably, as Keith Green would say, "asleep in the light." It's time for all of us to wake up and smell the coffee.

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/06/pedophilia-not-a-crime-rutgers-margo-kaplan/#dqTZRhC2Mb4oTDi2.01