A ruling that states no longer can refuse to recognize same-sex “marriage” or refuse to recognize such arrangements set up elsewhere not only failed to resolve the question, the decision triggered a wave of promises to ignore the Supreme Court, caused respect for court opinions to plummet and put momentum behind a move to simply tell the judges to shut up.
“This ruling by the five lawyers is no law at all,” said Mat Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which fought battles on behalf of biblical marriage. “It is lawless and must be treated as such.”
Multitudes of Americans joined in pledging to not follow the opinion and even one of the dissents in the opinion itself characterizes the majority, often described as “the court” in decades of opinions, as “five lawyers.”
That was from Chief Justice John Roberts, who pointed out the Constitution doesn’t refer to “marriage,” yet the “five lawyers” decided that it included a specific right to same-sex “marriage.”
“Just who do we think we are?” Roberts asked.
“Since government has been involved in marriage, they have done what they always do – taxed it, regulated it, and now redefined it. It is hard to argue that government’s involvement in marriage has made it better, a fact also not surprising to those who believe government does little right,” he said.
‘Takedown’! Who really sabotaged marriage – $4.95 today only!
He pointed out that some states are “beginning to understand this as they begin to get out of the marriage licensing business altogether.”
Vote to limit
There also was a resurgence in interest in suggestions that Congress simply vote to limit the courts’ jurisdiction over marriage issues.
The recent iteration of that idea comes from Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, whose plan was announced just weeks ago.
“For too long, federal courts have overstepped their constitutionally limited duty to interpret the Constitution,” he said then. “Rather, federal courts have perverted the Constitution to make law and create constitutional rights to things such as privacy, birth control and abortion. These unenumerated, so-called constitutionally protected rights were not envisioned by our Founding Fathers.”
The bill explains that federal courts wouldn’t have further jurisdiction over marriage, which is not mentioned in the Constitution.
The rebellion in Alabama was strong. There, the court system was accepting comments on the Supreme Court ruling.
Liberty Counsel had been involved in the Alabama dispute earlier, and on Monday the state Supreme Court, noting that there is a 25-day period in which case participants could petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a rehearing, announced it was accepting comments and statements on its own orders against same-sex “marriage.”
The announcement came in a case brought by the Alabama policy Institute and Alabama Citizens Action Program, which earlier fought a federal judge’s demand for same-sex “marriage” in the state.
“Pursuant to Rule 44, Sup. Ct. 4., the parties … have a period of 25 days to file a petition for rehearing … the parties in the present case are invited to submit any motions or briefs addressing the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell on this court’s existing orders in which case no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 6,” the state court said.
The high court’s ruling said states could not refuse to issue licenses to same-sex duos, nor could they refuse to recognize those arrangements from other states. But the opinion also acknowledged the constitutional right for people of faith to practice their religion on the issue.
We must not pretend opinion should be respected
“We must not pretend that the opinion of five lawyers should be respected as the rule of law,” Staver said. “The marriage decision is so far removed from the Constitution that it is merely the opinion of five people. The only authority the justices of the Supreme Court have is the Constitution of the United States. But five lawyers violated their oath by disregarding the Constitution and seeking to impose their own opinion.
“These five lawyers are entitled to their own opinion, however wrong it may be, but they have no authority to impose their personal opinion on the rest of the country.”
At Conservative Review, Daniel Horowitz went straight to the point.
“We have seen the court redefine statutes. We have seen the court redefine the Constitution like they did with Obamacare and in Roe v. Wade. But now we witness the court go a step further and void out natural law, the very foundation on which the Declaration of Independence was constructed – the document that asserts fundamental rights and liberties.”
The decision, he said, was based on “indefensible” assertions and “is not just immoral. It is irrational and illegal.”
Exclusive province of the states
He said part of the foundation for that was from Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the marriage opinion. In a previous case, Kennedy wrote, “Regulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the states.”
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, Horowitz said, has a plan to protect religious liberty, and Sen. Ted Cruz is on board with a plan to “strip the courts of their jurisdiction over marriage.”
“They say there is a fundamental right to abrogate the laws of nature that God has established as fundamental rights in the first place,” Horowitz wrote.
Several years ago, WND reported on a growing move to keep government out of marriage completely. The drumbeat then was launched by David Boaz of the Cato Institute who asked whether the government should decree marriage.
And then conservative talk host Larry Elder told WND readers in 2004 that marriage licenses made as much sense as licensing barbers or taxi-cab drivers. The state should “leave marriage to non-governmental institutions like churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship or private institutions.”
It was former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul who said in 2012 that he “would like the state to stay out of marriage. … A voluntary association shouldn’t be interfered with by the state, so I’d just as soon that the state not issue licenses or define marriage.” Paul wanted to “let the individual, let two people define marriage,” arguing it “would get rid of this whole debate and we wouldn’t be arguing over the definition of marriage.”
But Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, said marriage deserves a privileged place in the law because it brings benefits “that are important to the well-being of society as a whole and not just a couple.”
Chief among those benefits is children “for the continuance of the human race.” Marriage is “the only type of relationship that results in the [natural generation of children] and provides children with both a mother and father,” he said.
Marriage can exist without the state
“Marriage can exist without the state and in fact the institution predates the state,” said Sprigg. Even so, “there is value in having the state recognize marriage, because without that recognition it would be much more difficult to protect the rights and obligations of spouses and to distribute the benefits that the state gives.”
Herbert W. Titus, former dean of the Regent University School of Law and Government, pointed out then that marriage licenses actually serve a useful purpose because they “screen out those people who were violating the rules the Bible laid down as to who could be married and who could not be married.”
He cited Leviticus 18, which forbids sexual relations between close relations, family members and individuals of the same sex.
But once the law allows same-sex marriage, Titus said, “then it’s very difficult to see that there are any … barriers to marriage,” and that opens the door to sodomy and polygamy.
WND reported shortly after last week’s decision some state legislators and judges are considering getting out of the marriage business entirely – refusing to offer licenses to anyone.
Mississippi State House Judiciary Chairman Andy Gipson, R-Braxton, told the Jackson Clarion Ledger one possibility could be for the state to quit issuing licenses.
“One of the options that other states have looked at is removing the state marriage license requirement,” Gipson said. “We will be researching what options there are. I personally can see pros and cons to that. I don’t know if it would be better to have no marriage certificate sponsored by the state or not. But it’s an option out there to be considered.”
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant said he’s reviewing the state’s “options.”
The idea also surfaced in Oklahoma this year, where the House passed a bill that would remove state judges and county clerks from the whole process, leaving clergy and notaries to sign marriage papers.
Pull the plug
And in Alabama, two probate judges have pulled the plug on weddings altogether.
Probate Judge Wes Allen, who issues marriage licenses in Pike County, Alabama, said in a statement: “My office discontinued issuing marriage licenses in February, and I have no plans to put Pike County back into the marriage business. The policy of my office regarding marriage is no different today than it was yesterday.”
Friday’s Supreme Court’s decision, Judge Allen argued, didn’t void the Alabama law that says “marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate” in the state.
Also, in Geneva County, Alabama, Judge Fred Hamic declared, “I will not be doing any more ceremonies.”
As WND reported in October, Idaho state Sen. Steve Vick told Radio America’s Greg Corombos he was seriously considering legislation to get the state government out of marriage entirely because he fears churches will be the next target in the aggressive homosexual agenda.
Similar situations were developing in Texas and Louisiana, too.
from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/rand-paul-shut-down-governments-marriage-racket/
from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/rand-paul-shut-down-governments-marriage-racket/
No comments:
Post a Comment