judges and justiceWhat is a “power play”? There are several definitions (see power play), but the third applies here.

power play

an action, stratagem, or maneuver, as in politics or business, by which power is concentrated or manipulated in order to subdue a rival or gain control of a situation.

Unfortunately, because men are sinful, we find it difficult to provide a system of justice. Our desires get in the way. Whether it is right or not, we want what we want. Nonetheless, we try, and we have learned at least one thing. When judges do not produce decisions in accordance with then law — when their verdicts are nothing more an abuse of power, a power play — the men and women who preside in such courts do not provide anything that resembles justice.

Here of late, instead of justice our courts have produced decisions that look more and more like power plays. What is one of the most visible examples. That is the effort of judges to force same-sex “marriage” upon an increasingly horrified nation.

In an email he sent out today, Delegate Bob Marshall discusses the latest court decision.


The Court of Appeals refusal today to deny a stay of starting so-called same sex marriages in Virginia is lacking in moral clarity, historical precedent, social benefit and authentic constitutional grounding.

Their arrogant refusal of a stay was issued in defiance of the stay that the Supreme Court has already issued in the Utah same-sex marriage case.

The two erring judges in Virginia’s marriage case failed to show that same sex marriage, a union based on immoral behavior, is “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” as would be required if they were acting as jurists.

They fail to cite even one US Supreme Court decision that affirms an ostensible constitutional right to “marry the person you love.”

In fact, their novel ruling is compatible with the claim of three lesbians in Massachusetts who seek to have a threesome or “throuple” recognized as marriage.

In their radical hubris, these judges in attempting to foist same-sex “marriage” on Americans, seek to suspend the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,”

Look for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) groups to target church tax exemptions for failure to perform same sex marriages or rent church facilities for same sex marriages.  The “Human Rights Campaign” is now defending teachers fired from Catholic schools after allegedly marrying same-sex partners against Catholic teaching and school policy.

Soon, pastors who refuse to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies will be sued for hate speech.  Church charities that feed, clothe, house and care for the less fortunate will suffer as these lawsuits increase.

From 1884 to 1926 over fifty constitutional amendments were proposed in Congress to give Congress authority to regulate marriages,  None passed because in our federal system this has historically been a state matter, until now that is.

Why the rush to judgment?   Why not wait for the US Supreme Court to make their decision on this issue?

I applaud, Prince William Clerk of the Circuit Court, Michele McQuigg, for appealing to the Supreme Court to stop marriage licenses from being issued until the Supreme Court has heard the case.  Even Attorney General Mark Herring has been cited as saying he thought a stay appropriate in case SCOTUS rules in favor of Virginia’s Marriage Amendment so that any same-sex marriages done between now and then will not have to be undone.

I urge intelligent Virginians to read the well-researched dissent of Judge Neimeyer.​


Delegate Bob Marshall

Below are several news articles that discuss this case. When you read these articles, keep in mind that Virginia’s Attorney General, Mark Herring, is working to overturn Virginia’s Constitution. He is suppose to represent the citizens of Virginia, not work against us. Nevertheless, we have unwisely put such treacherous people in office. Instead of blaming the people we elect, perhaps it is time we considered what we are doing wrong.


  1. Get some rest. That last comment wasn’t at all responsive. You’ll be sharper in the morning, I’m sure.

    One issue that may benefit from additional thought is how removing bans on civil marriages between same sex couples would “protect the sanctity of family as a safe place to raise children.”
    “Sanctity” to me is a religious concept, and I get pretty nervous about the idea of the government coming in and trying to enforce or police sacred elements of religious life. This sounds like an idea that might have some tread life in Riyadh or Teheran, but not in our Republic under the Constitution.

  2. I think the reason that some heterosexuals and some homosexuals want to open the status of civil marriages to same sex couples is that they do not believe, under the Constitution, that a state can dispense a privileged legal status on the basis of sexual orientation. In the case of homosexuals, there are probably some homosexuals (although not all) who wish to avail themselves of the status of civil marriage. Why would you consider that “no reason at all.”?

    My point was largely that the issues appears to me to have no impact on religious marriage, a status which, at least in my case, is all I really care about.

    Respect is an inner judgment and a law (or absence of a law) cannot create “respect” if someone does not wish to extend it. I’m not clear as to why you think if things like the same sex marriage amendment in the Virginia Constitution, if overturned, would likely make people respect relationships that they presently do not respect.

    What did I write in my comment that was “untrue” or “transparently nonsensical”? I thought I was voicing an opinion and explaining why I held it. It’s difficult to be “untrue” in an expression of opinion. If you point me to my error(s), I will gladly correct them. Obviously, I did not say anything that was “untrue” in the sense of uttering a falsehood for purpose of deception. I accept your apology in advance, if that was what you were trying to imply.

    1. I tire (really is time to go to sleep)of repeating myself. So I will just reply with some comments I left here => http://theamericanpoststandard.com/2014/08/05/pulling-the-tares-of-tyranny-and-uprooting-the-american-experiment/

      For the most part, I dealt with with your question here => https://citizentom.com/2014/08/05/the-relationship-between-morality-and-the-law-part-2/#comment-54957.


      When we speak of same-sex marriage, we speak of something that cannot exist in fact. Two people of the same sex can sexually stimulate each other, but they cannot consummate a marriage. Homosexual sex is just a form a fornication. Because procreation is not possible, no children are involved, and government has no motivation to be involved. Whose rights would government protect? The children that might issue from the marriage?

      Hence, when someone supports government (what some weird religious group wants to do is their own business) endorsement of same-sex unions, they are in fact advocating one religious belief over another. Same-sex marriage licenses just amount to the government’s endorsement of same-sex recreational sex.

      Even though the news media has made same-sex marriage sound reasonable, it is not. It is just an example of sinners trying to make themselves feel less guilty. Sinners often do that by make others accomplices in their sins. That doesn’t work, but logic has little to do with sin.


      Since same-sex “marriage” (or same-sex unions) is a corruption of marriage, I oppose it. I do favor, however, limited government. Nonetheless, government exists to protect our rights. To protect the sanctity of family as a safe place to raise children, government must create and enforce some laws related to the family. That, I think, includes laws define marriage and the rights and obligations of each party.

  3. Much could be said here. I’ll confine myself to noting that, to my understanding, none of these decisions “force” same sex marriage on anyone, let alone on an “increasingly horrified nation.” (If anything, the polling data I see tend to indicate that same sex marriage is living in an environment of a “decreasingly horrified nation.”) My impression has been that only people who seek the legal status of marriage and who are voluntarily committed to another person of the same sex will avail themselves of this status if the Fourth Circuit’s opinion is ultimately upheld. If you have information that people will be forced into same sex marriages against their will, I’d like to know about it.

    I also have been carrying around the impression that this decision and others in other jurisdictions only affect state marriages. Religious groups are free to define marriage according to their beliefs. That would include religions that ban same sex marriages as well as those (I can’t think of any offhand) that require same-sex marriages. Those of us who come to marriage from a religious perspective don’t have much interest in this, as our religious beliefs and rites are not affected. The First Amendment is a blessed thing indeed.

    1. Perhaps my belief our nation is increasingly horrified is only wishful thinking. God knows whether we are or not, but I can only guess. Since they tend to be too easily skewed, I have little faith in polls.

      Since much of what you wrote is deliberately and transparently nonsensical or untrue, I wonder why you bothered. Are we suppose to believe homosexuals want to change the legal definition of marriage for no reason at all?

      Government exists to exercise force. Government punishes people both for breaking laws and for not obeying laws. If so-call homosexual rights activists are not trying to force people to recognize and show respect for their “marriages,” then our marriage laws have almost no reason to exist.

  4. It seems like the court system of the US has been increasing its power play for several years now. They have no concept of the original intent of constitutional principles nor does it take into account the will of the people. Basically, above all else the court system seems to have an agenda and it is swiftly seeking to bring it to pass.

    Thanks for the heads-up Tom. Lord bless.

    1. I agree about the SCOTUS inclination to power plays, but I date that court system turnaround to Supreme Court Justice Roberts.

      You know about him: He was appointed to the SCOTUS bench by a previous Republican but later caved in to pressure, and public attacks by the president, switching his vote to crucially support a major Democrat initiative despite its unconstitutionality and his previous inclinations of opposing it. Everyone knows about this famous case and incident.

      It occurred in 1937.

      I’ll write about this in my blog next week. Briefly, the famous Fireside Chats by Roosevelt were, in part, diatribes against the Supreme Court seeking public support for packing the court with progressives. He did not get that support. He was going to raise the number of SCOTUS justices to 13 so that progressives would always outvote the other members. But when Justice Owen Roberts switched over, and others followed, the issue became moot.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        1. I’ve been struck by similarities in name and circumstances, and I confess to using that for a bit of fun here. The facts are as stated, although “modern scholarship” (i.e., liberals re-writing history) tends to cut the 1937 Roberts more slack, saying in essence: “He was going to change his mind anyway, and was not influenced by threats from the White House.”

          The underlying case was a big progressive cause then — and three-quarters of a century later, still is — minimum wage laws.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    2. They have no concept of the original intent of constitutional principles nor does it take into account the will of the people.

      We have a remarkable capacity to deny a truth we don’t want to believe. Even though slave owners had to know what they were doing was wrong, for millennia people accepted slavery as normal. Even the Bible, filled with words that show a clear disgust with slavery, did not attempt to end it directly. And still there are those who contrive to exploit their fellows.

      Thank you for your comment. May our Lord bless you and yours.

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Mark 1:1

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; (NIV)

Jill Domschot

Joy in the Southwest


Here are some of the things I have learned from studying the Bible

BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

God, Guns and Guts Comrades!


Blatant - Over-Exposure

Insightful Geopolitics

Impartial Informative Always

Libertas and Latte

Ramblings of a Disgruntled Patriot and Coffee Slave

A Blog About Healing From PTSD

Healing After Narcissistic Abuse & Multiple Traumas

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens


Wandering Towards Faith Am I

The Stories In Between

Author River Dixon


From A Garden To A City - The Prophetic Journey


Philosophy is all about being curious, asking basic questions. And it can be fun!

Faithful Steward Ministries and FSM Women's Outreach

Christian Outreach Ministry to those Incarcerated, with Addictions and our Military

Jesus Quotes and God Thoughts

“God’s wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes.” ~Apostle Paul

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.


Supplying the Light of Love

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

John Branyan

the funny thing about the truth

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Dr. A's Website

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective




The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.


My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: