Over the next few years, I think we will begin to hear the word “nullification” more and more. So let’s look at what it means, and why it isn’t a good strategy to limit the continuous expansion of the federal government.

Some politicians and citizens have been arguing that states could use the Tenth Amendment to “nullify” any federal law that exceeds the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. This might work in some cases, where a state refuses to accept federal funds and thereby avoids the federal regulations that are always attached to those funds. But nullification cannot begin to curb all sorts of other abuses of federal power.

Michael Farris was on my radio program recently and provides constitutional and practical reasons why nullification cannot do as much as many proponents claim. The Tenth Amendment states that the enumerated powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. That doesn’t imply that states have the authority to independently determine when the federal government has acted outside the scope of its authority.

If you believe that the states and the people have the right to nullify a federal law, you won’t have a republic. If people could nullify any federal law, then we would soon have anarchy. We cannot give citizens in this country the right to nullify any law they believe is unconstitutional.

But we really can’t give such an unlimited power of nullification to the states either. Soon we would have a patchwork quilt of laws in the country and no cohesive set of laws that applied to the country as a whole. Right now, you might want to nullify a federal law like Obamacare or a federal regulation from the EPA or a Supreme Court ruling on abortion. Michael Farris says that once a state does that, another state might want to nullify the recent Supreme Court decision on the Hobby Lobby case. Nullification works both ways.

I hope you can see that the issue is more complex than the bumper stickers calling for nullification might suggest.

Later this month the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether states can define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Court watchers expect that the court will strike down those laws.

If the justices do this, they will also be striking down the laws in every other state in the country. That is why many have described this case as “the Roe v. Wade of marriage.” It could have the same sweeping impact that the 1973 decision by the court on abortion.

But there is a striking difference. The people of America didn’t go to the polls and vote on abortion. So the court wasn’t nullifying the will of millions of people. True, the court went far beyond what most Americans might have wanted. But there weren’t election results they had to reverse. This time is different. Let’s look at the numbers.

If you just look at the states that passed a constitutional amendment defining traditional marriage, you end up with more the 41 million people who voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It appears that a slim majority of justices on the court are poised to reject the votes of these 41 million people.

But you might argue that federal judges overturned some of those constitutional amendments. That is true. Approximately two-dozen unelected judges overturned the expressed will of the people in those various elections in about 20 states. They substituted their personal policy preferences to overrule millions of Americans.

You might also mention that in a few states, the citizens did vote for same-sex marriage. Those total votes are about 3 million. Again, that pales in comparison with 41 million who voted for traditional marriage. It is a ratio of more than 12 to 1.

If five members of the Supreme Court rule in favor of same-sex marriage and strike down all the state constitutional amendments, that ratio will be 4,000,000 to 5. Is that really what these arrogant Supreme Court justices want to do? It will send a signal that the vote of the people doesn’t matter and that the high court knows better what is best for the American people.

On this Easter weekend, I thought it would be appropriate to reflect on the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. The prophets proclaimed that He would come to save the people. Jesus did this with His birth, death, burial, and resurrection.

The Bible is unique in many ways, especially when it comes to fulfilled prophecy.
At the time when it was written, 27 percent (1800 verses) of the Bible was prophetic. Large portions of those prophecies have been fulfilled, and that is a powerful argument for the inspiration of the Bible.

What is the probability that these Messianic prophecies could be fulfilled in the life of one person by chance? Peter Stoner, in his book Science Speaks, calculated the probability of just eight Messianic prophecies being fulfilled by chance. These included the prophecy in Micah 5:2 that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Another was Malachi 3:1 that predicted that a messenger would prepare the way for the Messiah. Four of the prophecies were from Zechariah. They predicted that the Messiah would be betrayed, by a friend, for 30 pieces of silver, and it would be used to buy a potter’s field. Another prophecy said that the Messiah would die by being pierced (crucified).

Multiplying all of these probabilities together, Peter Stoner produced a number of 10 to the 28th power. He then divided this number by the number of people who have lived since the time of the prophecies and came up with a number of 10 to the 17th power. In other words, the chance that just eight prophecies could be fulfilled by chance is one in one hundred quadrillion. In order to illustrate this, he says imagine we could fill the state of Texas with silver dollars two feet deep. Put a red mark on one and then ask a blindfolded person to travel anywhere in the state. The chance that he would pick up the marked silver dollar on the first try would be one in one hundred quadrillion.

The conclusion is simple. Jesus is indeed the Messiah predicted by the prophets.

Secularism is advancing in the west often because people are easily intimidated and unwilling to take a stand for religious liberty. One person who took a stand is Superintendent Michael Gilbert.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation learned that Principal Dan Noll of White Oak High School would offer his “Thoughts of the Day” with the morning announcements. Since some included a quote from the Bible, they sent a letter to the superintendent thinking that would scare the school district into compliance. Instead, he assured the secular group that the principal would continue to offer his “Thoughts for the Day” but it would not include chapter and verse from Scripture. Here is his letter to them:

“Let me be clear, this is an attempt to draw us into a contest of words for the sole purpose of giving the FFRF a large amount of free press/recognition that they and their very few members (1,200 in Texas) do not deserve. This group and others like it, are wanting us to provide them with negative quotes to use in the promotion of their agenda. We can and will make the adjustments needed to ensure our students experience a morally sound, positive character based education. There are a multitude of options to provide our students, faculty and staff the opportunity to express their First Amendment Rights as provided for in the United States Constitution. Let me also be clear that we have not (in my opinion) violated anyone’s rights and/or subjected anyone to undue stress. Bible studies and scriptures are allowed in schools.”

This letter is refreshing at a time when so many people (parents, teachers, principals, administrators) often go out of their way to be politically correct and avoid any confrontation. Too many have been intimidated and allow a small but vocal group to remove any mention of religion in the public sphere.

I am encouraged that Superintendent Michael Gilbert took a stand. I hope other teachers, principals, and superintendents will do the same.

Perhaps homosexual activists believe they have been victorious and can now be more honest about their agenda. In the past, many would deny there is a gay agenda. Now they are talking about it openly. At least they are talking about it in Canada.

Bear Bergman is a Canadian activist who recently said he was tired of hiding his true agenda. “I am here to tell you: All that time I said I wasn’t indoctrinating anyone with my beliefs about gay and lesbian and bi and trans and queer people? That was a lie.”

As the head of a Toronto publishing company, he was taught how to use “soft” language when talking about homosexuality. He was not to betray his real goal, which was to recruit kids into the lifestyle. He wanted “those children to disagree with their families on the subject of LGBTQ people.” He concludes his article by admitting that: “I have been on a consistent campaign of trying to change people’s minds about us.”

Aurora Dagny is another gay activist in Canada, and has written an essay critical of the homosexual movement. “There is something dark and vaguely cultish about this particular brand of politics. I’ve thought a lot about what exactly that is. I’ve pinned down four core features that make it so disturbing: dogmatism, groupthink, a crusader mentality, and anti-intellectualism.”

If someone disagrees with the prevailing homosexual mindset, they are not just wrong, but are seen as awful people. They also divide the world into an in-group and an out-group. Disagree on just one item, and you become a heretic. “Groupthink becomes the modus operandi.” And there is crusader mentality, which is “an extreme self-righteousness based on the conviction that they are doing the secular equivalent of God’s work.”

These candid comments help explain why Christian bakers, florists, and photographers are being persecuted by homosexual activists. Most of us have a “live and let live” philosophy of life. Homosexual activists apparently do not.

The book, Heather Has Two Mommies was published 25 years ago and was one of the first books to promote a positive view of lesbian parenthood. Now that a new version of the book has hit the market, some who were raised by lesbian mothers are starting to speak out and give a different perspective.

Heather Barwick used to be an advocate for homosexual marriage when she was in her 20’s. Now in her 30s she has had a change of heart and says she missed out on having her father around when she was growing up. In fact, she declares that: “children need a mother and father.” Imagine that.

She is not hostile or resentful of her two female parents, but she realizes she missed something. “It’s only now, as I watch my children loving and being loved by their father each day, that I see the beauty and wisdom in traditional marriage and parenting.” She also says that her “father wound” began to heal when she starting attending church. “It really wasn’t until I came to Christ that I felt that burden lifted off of me.”

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is reading similar stories. The judges are considering a case involving same-sex marriage and have received friend of the court briefs from adults who were raised in homosexual homes. One said: “I grew up with a parent and her partners in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool of repression, retribution and abuse.” She added that she has “seen that children in gay households often become props to be publically displayed to prove that gay families are just like heterosexual ones.” Another testified that he “experienced a great deal of sexual confusion” and “had an inexplicable compulsion to have sex with older males.”

Nearly every one of these adults raised in homosexual situations said they were afraid to speak out but felt compelled to do so. One tells of how homosexual activists harassed his employers and spread lies about him on the Internet. Unfortunately, these tragic stories won’t make it into the latest edition of Heather Has Two Mommies.