Prophetic Bulletin- Message to the Supreme Court
  MorningStar Prophetic Bulletin #92 - April 8, 2015

James Robison

James Robison

This is concise and clear statement on the 
implications of the coming Supreme Court decision 
on same-sex marriage could be the biggest blow in 
recent history to religious freedom in America, 
and may truly be, as it is being called, "A 
Bonhoeffer Moment." This is a must read for every 
Christian in America. – Rick Joyner

             This Tuesday, March 10, I was asked 
to join more than thirty other deeply concerned 
church leaders on a conference call. The topic 
was the marriage and family-damaging decision the Supreme Court may soon make.

             If they follow present cultural 
trends and rulings of numerous lower courts, by 
June they will rule against the biblical and 
historical institution of marriage in favor of 
what is being called “same-sex marriage.” Below 
are excerpts from comments and concerns expressed 
by those who participated in the call.

             These comments have been edited and 
condensed without compromising the content or 
concerns. I felt very deeply in my heart that it 
should be shared with all who are concerned about 
the obvious assault on faith, family and freedom.



Opening remarks by Rick Scarborough (President – Vision America Action)

             There is a growing concern about the 
nature of the ruling the Supreme Court will hand 
down in June on same-sex marriage. We believe 
that the majority of the Court will rule in favor 
of elevating what we have always taught to be a 
sinful lifestyle to the stature of a civil right 
— forcing us to choose between their ruling and 
our religious convictions that are based on 
Scripture. This ruling will conflict with our 
deeply held conviction and religious belief.

             With the current administration, 
there is every reason to believe that the 
Executive Branch will use the full weight of the 
Federal justice system to enforce this. We must 
be prepared for that possibility.

             I am speaking as a minister to the 
moral and biblical ramifications of this expected 
ruling. This would be a decision as incorrect and 
as tragic as Dred Scott. Because of the trends 
and cultural shifts that we have witnessed in 
culture over the past forty years, we have all 
known that this day would likely come and 
Christians would be put at odds with the culture and the courts.

             I believe we are there. We are 
approaching a Bonhoeffer moment in America.

             Outrageous penalties are now being 
assessed against people of faith and conviction 
who haven’t changed their position on marriage. 
Rather it’s the courts that have changed the 
definitions, the rules, and laws that now govern 
us. They are ruling against Nature’s Law and 
Nature’s God. Christians are being declared the 
lawbreakers when we are simply living by what we 
have always believed, and by a set of laws that 
the culture historically has agreed to.

             My desire as a pastor is to see 
another Great Awakening, and I pray that those 
caught up in any sin will find Jesus and God’s 
grace, but that can only come when there is a 
biblical standard lifted up and acknowledged as 
truth. Right now the courts are changing the 
playing field and declaring that what the natural 
eye can see and natural law reveals is not truth. 
Therefore, this is a Bonhoeffer moment. What will 
we do, and how will we respond?

             The timing of this conference call 
in coordination with the anniversary of the stand 
on the bridge in Selma is remarkable. Things do 
not change if no one stands up and takes the 
brunt. Right after a word from Dr. Dobson, Mat 
Staver will walk us through the seriousness of 
the situation. We must find the mind of God and 
walk uprightly regardless of the direction of the culture or the Court.



Dr. James Dobson (Founder – Family Talk Radio)

             Thank you, Rick. That was a 
beautiful statement you made, and it stirs my 
heart. As Christian leaders, we cannot sit and 
let our voices go silent when that’s what the 
rest of the world, Congress, and many other 
Christian leaders and pastors are doing. We must 
stand together. Everyone I have talked to here at Family Talk agrees.

             We will be attacked from every 
direction, and critics will do all they can to 
weaken and embarrass us, but so what? Are we 
going to sit on our reputations and go to our 
graves without having played a role? This is Roe 
v. Wade all over again. I am standing shoulder to 
shoulder with all who will stand up for God’s 
Word concerning marriage. We don’t know all of 
the steps that must be taken, but God will reveal 
His will. To the extent that I am able to 
influence anybody, I will do it with passion.



Mat Staver (Founder – Liberty Counsel)

             I express my thanks to Rick 
Scarborough and Dr. Dobson. Their comments 
resonate with all of us. Let me address the 
seriousness and the basis for engaging with 
resistance to a Supreme Court decision that could 
go the wrong way. Once you elevate same-sex 
marriage to the level of protected status, 
whether on the federal or the state level, you 
begin to change and transform the face of 
society. In my view, it will result in the 
beginning of the end of Western Civilization.

             When you make a government policy 
that says that this is a relationship between 
humans that is so critical, so fundamental, and 
so essential to our society and to our future 
that we are going to protect it by law and 
surround it with laws and benefits that are 
designed to protect that relationship as a policy 
matter, you are taking a big step. You are 
essentially saying that boys and girls don’t need 
moms and dads—that moms and dads are irrelevant.

             Gender becomes pointless when 
government adopts same-sex marriage. It creates a 
genderless relationship out of a very gender 
specific relationship. It says that it doesn’t 
matter and that two moms or two dads are 
absolutely equivalent to a mom and a dad.

             Immediately, when elevated to that 
level of a constitutionally protected category, 
it is given the same status as race. What you 
cannot legally do with respect to race, you will 
not be able to do legally with respect to 
same-sex unions and sexual immorality.

             Think of race in the context of 
religious expression or conscience expression and 
replace it with sexual immorality, transsexualism 
or so-called gender identity. For example, 
churches and other religious organizations are 
exempt from the religious discrimination 
provisions of federal, state, or local 
nondiscrimination laws. But they are not exempted 
from the race provisions. So Catholics can hire 
Catholics, and Baptists can hire Baptists, but 
they cannot hire only “white” Catholics or only 
“white” Baptists. They would face significant 
penalties. You can’t have separate restrooms or 
drinking fountains for people of a different 
color. If a church did that, they would be liable 
for a significant amount of damages because of 
discrimination on the basis of race.

             Same-sex marriage or laws including 
sexual orientation or gender identity as a 
non-discrimination category directly impact 
religious organizations and churches. If a man 
wants to use the women’s restroom and a church 
official told him he could not, then that act 
would be like telling people of color they cannot 
use the “white only” restroom. You will also have 
the same issues with tax exemption over sexual 
preference as you have now over race.

         Already a Methodist church association 
in New Jersey lost its property tax exemption 
status because it refused to allow use of their 
facilities for a same-sex union. Although the 
church then obtained a religious exemption 
instead, it ceased all weddings on its boardwalk 
pavilion. Bob Jones University lost its tax 
exemption status because it refused to allow 
mixed-race dating. They have since abandoned that 
false doctrinal belief, but they still lost their 
tax exemption at the Supreme Court. It will not 
be long if same-sex marriage is adopted that 
other universities could lose tax exemptions if 
they maintain a policy based on natural marriage and biblical morality.

             Anything that you can imagine on the 
basis of race discrimination will apply to this 
issue of sexual preference. There is a huge 
collision coming. Those examples will be intensified significantly.

             Roe v. Wade was a time when the 
church should have said no, regardless of what 
seven Supreme Court justices said. The difference 
is Roe was a wrong decision that resulted in a 
loss of life, but people were not forced to 
participate. With this issue, people will be 
forced to participate and affirm it. It will 
affect licenses for counselors, attorney 
disciplines, and every licensing profession will be affected.

             In the history of the Supreme Court, 
they have reversed themselves about 230 times, 
and other Supreme Court decisions have been 
overruled by new laws or Constitutional 
amendments. Two were especially bad decisions. 
There was the Dred Scott decision in 1857. The 
Supreme Court told Scott he was not entitled to 
full citizenship, because people believed that 
“blacks are inferior human beings.” That was 
contrary to the Constitution, natural law, and 
revealed law, but we still went along with it, and we ended up in a civil war.

             Today no one would agree that was 
right. Why did we obey it then? In the case of 
Buck v. Bell a lady in Virginia was forcibly 
sterilized as part of the eugenics movement. This 
was promoted by Planned Parenthood because they 
wanted to get rid of the “undesirables,” which 
according to Planned Parenthood at the time 
included blacks, the infirmed, and those with low IQs.

             They did this because there was a 
history of low IQ in her family. The Supreme 
Court said that there is no justice for her 
because “three generations of imbeciles” in her 
family was enough, so they upheld the decision. 
When the Nazis were put on trial at the Nuremburg 
trials, they cited the Buck v. Bell decision to 
justify their use of forced sterilization. To 
this day, that Supreme Court decision hasn’t been 
overturned, though no one would justify that 
decision today. It wasn’t right then, and it isn’t right now.

             In 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey 
was argued in the Supreme Court. During that week 
they voted, and it was a 5-4 vote to overrule Roe 
v. Wade. For thirty days William Rehnquist was 
writing the opinion to overrule it. For those 
thirty days, O’Connor and Justice David Souter 
lobbied Justice Anthony Kennedy who was part of the majority to overrule it.

             After thirty days, they broke 
through, and he wrote a note to a fellow justice 
Harry Blackmun who wrote the decision in 1973. 
Kennedy switched his vote, so the Opinion was 
taken away from Rehnquist and given to another 
justice. So Roe v. Wade was upheld, rather than 
overruled. O’Connor said in that Opinion that 
even if Roe v. Wade was decided wrongly, we have 
to uphold it because the power of the Court rests 
solely in the confidence of the people.

             Unlike the executive branch, which 
enforces the law, or the legislative branch, 
which enacts the law, she said that the Supreme 
Court has no power to enforce our law: the only 
way our orders have enforcement is because the 
people voluntarily comply. The executive branch 
must uphold it. Upholding Roe v. Wade was 
necessary, she argued, to uphold the power of the 
Court and the confidence of the people that what 
they do is right. She said in her Opinion that 
upholding the decision of Roe v. Wade was a 
necessity to maintain the authority of the Court 
and the power of the institution.

             Historically we know that Thomas 
Jefferson would not enforce the Alien and 
Sedition Acts of 1798 that President John Adams 
had signed. Jefferson wrote a letter to Abigail 
Adams saying, what gives you the idea that the 
judges have the final authority to be the 
arbiters of the law? If that were the case, we would have a despotic branch.

             Lincoln advocated disobedience to 
Dred Scott, and Andrew Jackson advocated 
disobedience to the banking bill, so it’s not 
unprecedented that both executives and 
individuals have said some laws are just and some are unjust.

             Martin Luther King’s argument in 
“Letter from Birmingham Jail” considered just and 
unjust laws. Just laws are laws in conformity to 
higher law we have a duty to obey. We also have a 
duty to disobey laws that are against higher law 
but be prepared for the consequences of the wrath 
of the civil authorities. We still cannot obey the unjust laws.

             In 2004, same-sex marriage came to 
Massachusetts. Catholic charities refused to 
place orphans in same-sex homes, so they stopped 
doing adoptions. What they should have done, and 
now what we should do, is to say we are called on 
a mission and that is to place orphans in homes 
with moms and dads. We will not run from that 
calling, but we will also not violate our 
consciences and The Bible by placing them in a 
place that is sinful and immoral. If you disagree 
with it, bring your civil authority after us 
because we will not voluntarily cease with our calling.

             The photographer out in New Mexico, 
the baker in Oregon, Washington florist 
Barronelle Stutzman—they are all facing the same 
thing. We either all stand together, or we hang 
separately. This is indeed a Bonhoeffer moment. 
They might be able to pick us off individually, 
but collectively they can’t. Whenever someone 
gets targeted, we must gather around them and say no.

             In Alabama, the Supreme Court has 
made a decision to refuse to enforce same-sex 
marriage (read the decision at LC.org). When you 
read the decision, you don’t get the impression 
that the Alabama Supreme Court justices are 
waiting for the June decision to see what the 
U.S. Supreme Court decides. They are making their 
stand now that they will not go along with it, 
and their minds won’t be changed.

             It’s one thing to say you will 
stand; it’s another to withstand the fines and 
the potential of loss of your entire livelihood 
(such as Barronelle Stutzman). We must 
collectively support and stand with them and say 
we will not cross that line. We need to let them 
know now where we stand. Tell them now that if 
they cross that line, they will become an 
illegitimate institution, that the Supreme Court 
will lose the respect of the American people and therefore lose its authority.

  James Robison is the Founder and Publisher of The Stream (stream.org).


Thanks much.

Many Blessings,

Pat Ferguson
"I can Do all Things Through Christ Who Strengthens Me" Philippians 4:13.