Our Books

If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing one of our books (as low as $2.99). Click here to visit our Amazon page.

Our Books

Our Books
Books by Trevor Grant Thomas and Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas

E-Mail Me:

NOTE: MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED! Trevor's new email address: trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives (for the current year; links to previous years archives at the bottom of each page)---PLUS: Trevor's Columns Archived (page linked at the bottom of the table below):

Sunday, July 12, 2015

Obergefell: The Dred Scott of Our Time

In 1854, around one single issue—opposition to slavery—the Republican Party was formed. As historian David Barton notes,
“The Republican agenda was clear, for every platform since its inception had boldly denounced slavery. In fact, when the U. S. Supreme Court delivered the 1857 Dred Scott ruling protecting slavery and declaring that Congress could not prohibit it even in federal territories, the Republican platform strongly condemned that ruling and reaffirmed the right of Congress to ban slavery in the territories. But setting forth an opposite view, the Democrat platform praised the Dred Scott ruling, and the continuation of slavery, and also loudly denounced all anti-slavery and abolition efforts.”
As I noted after Obergefell v. Hodges—or the modern day Dred Scott—where the perversion that is same-sex “marriage” was legalized across the U.S., there is plenty for Christians and other like-minded conservatives to do. Of course, this means action by elected conservatives. Today’s republicans can learn a great lesson from their political ancestors.

Over a century-and-a-half ago, the immorality of slavery was clear to those who supported (and wrote) the Republican platform. Likewise, today's republicans should have the same moral clarity when it comes to the perverse sexual agenda of today's left. Whether abortion, same-sex "marriage," gender distortions, and so on, the Democrat Party has sold itself out to the "Do as thou wilt" philosophy of modern liberalism. This wicked godlessness must be opposed at every turn.

From now until the Obergefell ruling is reversed (and perhaps marriage is properly defined in the U.S. Constitution) the Republican platform should, in the strongest terms--as it did in the Dred Scott case--condemn the ruling, and contain the proper definition of marriage. Whether by Constitutional amendment or judicial reversal, every effort to return our legal code back to supporting the laws of the Law Giver must be made.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World


  1. The fact that you would use the phrase "marriage equality" reveals just how far you've allowed yourself to be corrupted by liberalism. As I've noted many times before, the left doesn't believe in "marriage equality."

    In other words, liberals don't have the same sympathies towards the polygamous, incestuous, "throuples," or those same-sex couples who want to “marry” for reasons that have nothing to do with sex.

    Also, just six Senate Republicans voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. It passed by an overall vote of 73-27. In the House, 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted against the Civil
    Rights Act, passing with an overall 290-130 vote. While most Democrats in both chambers voted for it, the bulk of the opposition was from Democrats.

    As Kevin Williamson notes, "There is no radical break in the Republicans’ civil-rights history:
    From abolition to Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, from the
    Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to
    the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, there exists a line that is by no means perfectly straight or unwavering but that nonetheless connects the politics of Lincoln with those of Dwight D. Eisenhower. And from slavery and secession to remorseless opposition to everything from Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, there exists a similarly identifiable line connecting John Calhoun and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Supporting civil-rights reform

    was not a radical turnaround for congressional Republicans in 1964, but it was a radical turnaround for Johnson and the Democrats.

    The fact is that the Republican Party was (and is) the anti-slavery party, and is the pro-marriage, and pro-life party because of one thing: Christian conservatives. The same Truth that reveals slavery for the evil that it is, is that same Truth that tells us that a child in the womb is a life worth protecting at every stage, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life.

  2. what a completely biased thing to say about southerners.
    I am from Connecticut, raised there for 50 years, now live in Dixie, and you have no clue as to what youre talking about.

  3. Your stats don't disprove the point I made. That vote was among geographical lines. If you cannot admit that the south and its politicians have oppressed minorities for generations, you're more deusional than I thought when I first read this post. And Jim, I live in Dixie too, with my eyes open, unlike you apparently. I know EXACTLY what I'm talkinh about.

  4. And your stats don't disprove my point: The Republican Party is the anti-slavery, pro-marriage, pro-family, pro-life party. And do you deny that it was Christians, just as they are in the pro-marriage/family/life movements, who led the way in the abolition movement?