If the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the 14th Amendment establishes a right to same-sex “marriage,” the justices won’t just be on thin ice constitutionally, they’ll be trying to walk on no ice at all, charges a legal team that has opposed the “gay”-rights agenda in court for decades.
The Supreme Court is considering a case from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding traditional marriage against five challenges in four states. Herbert W. Titus, who taught constitutional law for 26 years and is the founding dean of Regent Law School, and former Reagan administration official William J. Olson write in their analysis of the case that the opinion of 6th Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton begins with “a remarkable observation.”
The judge’s observation “should have resolved the case in that once sentence, but did not,” said Titus and Olson, who practice law together at William J. Olson, P.C. Their comments were in a report funded by the United States Justice Foundation.
“Judge Sutton points out that ‘[n]obody in this case … argues that the people who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment understood it to require the states to change the definition of marriage,'” they write.
“Laymen logically deduce that if the Fourteenth Amendment as written had nothing to do with same-sex marriage, that’s the end of the matter,” they said.
“After all, Justice [William] Douglas succinctly described the amendment in his autobiography: ‘The Fourteenth Amendment was passed to give blacks first-class citizenship.’ … But for those lawyers who want unelected judges to set the public policy of our nation, it simply doesn’t matter what the framers intended. And neither does it matter to many judges who are all too willing to give effect to their own political views. Discovering the ‘authorial intent’ of the Framers is only a small part of their concern — a step they sometimes skip over entirely.”
The analysis comes as a decision is expected any day on the case, which could change the definition of marriage that has prevailed for millennia. Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsberg already have taken a public stand on the issue by performing ceremonies for same-sex couples.
“Generally, courts have ruled for same-sex marriage using either the ‘due process clause’ or the ‘equal protection clause’ of the Fourteenth Amendment, or both,” the analysis explains.
“That raises a simple question: is it really possible that when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 the framers intended that it sanction same-sex marriage? Of course not. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about same-sex marriage. Then, how could the Constitution be manipulated to support a decision in favor of same-sex marriage?
“Well it has not been easy. The constitutional case for same-sex marriage is pathetically weak – unless you adopt the notion of an ‘evolving’ Constitution – which is, of course, the polar opposite of the notion of our ‘written’ Constitution.”
They note that Justice Samuel Alito previously explained that same-sex “marriage” is not “a difficult question of constitutional law.”
He wrote in the 2013 Windsor decision, regarding the federal Defense of Marriage Act: “The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue. It is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.”
That means those who challenge traditional marriage want “the recognition of a very new right, and they seek this innovation not from a legislative body elected by the people, but from unelected judges.”
The history of rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed traditional marriage over and over, the analysis notes.
“The Supreme Court has always assumed that marriage law was originally governed by the common law which required consummation between one male and one female,” it said.
“The court … explained: ‘though formed by contract … the relation of husband and wife, deriv[ed] both its rights and duties from a source higher than any contract of which the parties are capable, and, as to these, uncontrollable by any contract which they can make.’ And ‘[w]hen formed,’ the court continued, the relation between husband and wife was ‘no more a contract than ‘fatherhood’ or ‘sonship’ is a contract.’ Instead, marriage ‘partakes more of the character of an institution regulated and controlled by public authority, upon principles of public policy, for the benefit of the community.’
“Thus, it is just pretense to claim that the Supreme Court previously established the right ‘to marry the person of one’s choice.'”
Titus and Olson previously released an analysis that warned virtually every family law in the nation, including those regarding inheritance, support, custody, adoption, divorce, testimonial privileges, interests in land and conveyance would have to be changed if the justices create a right to same-sex “marriage.”
The attorneys said any decision “will have repercussions of titanic proportions.”
Besides the wholesale revision of every state’s family law, the lawyers argue that Christian and other religious adoption agencies would face forced closure.
Also, speech based on the Bible no longer necessarily would be allowed in churches, they argued.
“Pastors would be monitored by atheist and liberal groups to ensure that there be no teaching that homosexual behavior is sin. Even websites which offer information about withdrawing from homosexual behavior would be banned as ‘hate speech.'”
Churches would lose their tax exemptions, which could lead to the forfeiture of church properties. And there no longer would be valid arguments against multiple-partner or incestuous marriages, they said.
Also, those who hold biblical views would be driven from public office, as in North Carolina where numerous judges have resigned to avoid criminal prosecution for refusing to perform homosexual “marriages.”
Businesses would be ordered to cater to homosexual duos, who already have been targeting florists, photographers, bakers and others.
And likely no professional whose occupation requires a state license would be allowed to work without subscribing to the “gay” agenda, they argue.
She said the world is “coming close to the end of human history as we know it.”
“Our world is unraveling,” she told Colmes. “I think the whole world senses, especially those who follow the news, senses that something is happening that is very unsettling.”
Colmes had asked Lotz, the author of nearly a dozen books and the president of AnGeL Ministries, whether she believed “we are at the end times now.”
“I believe that it is, Alan, and I base that not just on feelings; I base it on what Jesus said in the New Testament and then what I see going on in the world at the same time – and they match,” she said. “And so I put that together and I believe we’re coming close to the end of human history as we know it.”
Lotz said that with the end times “comes accountability before God, which we would call a judgment.”
Hear the interview:
WND reported a few weeks ago President Obama was making jokes about end-times beliefs.
Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, a four-term Republican from Minnesota, had criticized Obama for his support of a framework agreement with Iran that she said would lead to war and bring judgment on America.
Obama took her to task in a half-joking, mocking tone.
“Michele Bachmann actually predicted I would bring about the biblical end of days,” Obama said. “Now that’s a legacy. That’s big. I mean Lincoln, Washington, they didn’t do that.”
Bachmann made the comments in a recent interview with Jan Markell of Olive Tree Ministries on her show, “Understanding the End Times.”
Bachmann was unfazed by Obama’s snarky comeback.
“The Bible is filled with exciting information about living life today and in the future, both in this life and in the life to come,” Bachmann told WND. “Any message that brings people closer to God’s wonderful plans for our lives is a good thing.
Lotz’s brother, Franklin Graham, also said recently that the nation could be in the end times, pointing to Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.
“One of the greatest threats to America is the progressives (a new name for liberals) led by President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder who are trying to impose a new morality – which is really no morality at all – jamming it down the throats of the American people,” he said, the Christian Post reported.
Graham said America has been “blessed by God” unlike any other country in the world but faces serious threats of degradation and destruction, mostly from within.
“When our country was birthed, its foundations and laws were based on biblical laws and principles,” he said, writing on his personal Facebook page. “We used to be ‘one nation under God.’ Now we’re a nation that has turned its back on God. History shows that when nations do this, their end is near.”