If the strength of a movement is measured by the stature of the opposition, Americans who are beginning to fight back against the Supreme Court’s narrow approval of “same-sex marriage” have a bright future.
Jim Obergefell – whose name was on the case used to create same-sex marriage – criticized a Tennessee bill that would not recognize the Supreme Court’s decision in the state.
Among the many criticisms of the marriage decision is the fact that two Supreme Court justices, Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg, advocated for same-sex marriage while the case was heard, by performing ceremonies for same-sex couples. The vote was 5-4.
Obergefell responded to the Tennessee proposal with a Twitter message over the weekend, Raw Story reported.
“Get over it,” Obergefell wrote. “You lost. Move on to other things that would make life better for your citizens. All citizens.”
His comment echoed President Obama’s message to Republicans shortly after his first election: “I won. You lost.”
Tennessee’s House Bill 1412 is described as “an Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 36, relative to the ‘Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act.”
How did America get from “Mayberry” to “gay marriage?” Here’s the explanation, in “A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.”
It states: “Five justices of the United States Supreme Court issued a lawless opinion with no basis in American law or history, purporting to overturn natural marriage and find a ‘right’ to same-sex ‘marriage’ in the United States Constitution.”
The bill cites Chief Justice John Roberts, who said in his minority dissent that the decision had “no basis in the Constitution.”
The Tennessee bill notes that just two years ago, the Supreme Court itself ruled that “states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce.”
“Whereas, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, two justices essential to the bare five justice majority in Obergefell, failed to recuse themselves from considering of the case, after demonstrating personal bias in its outcome, by officiating at and advocating for same-sex ‘marriage’ ceremonies, during the pendency of proceedings on the issue, in violation of 28 U.S.C 455 (‘Any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’)
“Our rights come from the Creator, not the state, and our ‘Constitution – like the Declaration of Independence before it – was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from – not provided by – the state.'”
The bottom line for the state?
“Natural marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman as recognized by the people of Tennessee remains the law in Tennessee, regardless of any court decision to the contrary. Any court decision purporting to strike down natural marriage, including Obergefell v. Hodges … is unauthoritative, void, and of no effect.”
The bill argues there is precedent for refusing to obey the Supreme Court, when the Wisconsin Legislature refused to file a Supreme Court mandate regarding the fugitive slave law nearly 160 years ago.
“In addition to Wisconsin, the legislatures of Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Michigan actively nullified the Fugitive Slave Act and repugnant decisions of the United States Supreme Court by passing ‘personal liberty’ laws, making it nearly impossible to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act in those states,” the lawmakers wrote.
Tennessee’s proposal, which is expected to be discussed during the coming legislative session, points out the Supreme Court “is not the sole and final arbiter of the powers of the states under the ninth and tenth amendments, when it acts in an area outside of its jurisdiction.”
Not a settled issue
Meanwhile, Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis, spent five days in jail for refusing a judge’s order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of her Christian faith. She promptly returned to her office and set up her own accommodation, crossing her name off of marriage licenses.
There also are nearly a dozen counties in Alabama where officials have refused to issue any marriage licenses. The state law says officials “may” issue licenses, not “shall” or “will,” leaving the outcome of any legal challenge uncertain.
Also, state legislatures in multiple states have been busy creating exemptions for those who have religious objections to same-sex marriage.
In Arkansas, House Majority Leader Ken Bragg, a Republican, said his legislature is examining its options.
“We refuse to simply shrug our shoulders and abandon basic principles that have guided our country successfully for the past 239 years,” he said in a statement. “We will work with other conservative leaders in our state and across the nation, strengthen the bonds of unity, and explore all available options. That certainly includes increased legislative protections for our First Amendment freedoms to exercise religion.”
Lawmakers in other states, including Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Utah and Wisconsin, also are considering legislation.
Many supporters of traditional marriage argue public sentiment is strongly against the Supreme Court’s mandate. Voters in 31 states in recent years having adopted legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The following WND map reveals how “same-sex marriage” spread in the United States. Red regions are where it came through popular vote, green where the legislatures took action, and the rest was where it arrived through judicial decree:
Many Christian organizations have promised enduring opposition, and a political action committee has been established.
The Restore Marriage PAC is trying to muster a convention of states to amend the Constitution to “enable states to quash” the Supreme Court’s decision, according to the Express News in Texas
“Most Americans think that since the Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriage, the issue is settled. It is not,” said the PAC’s founder, Ammon J. Taylor.
Obergefell’s reaction came after more than 400 conservatives rallied in support of Davis.
The National Conference of State Legislatures said the Obergefell case “has been both celebrated and condemned.”
“The court relied on the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses in its opinion.”
There has been resistance from some candidates for the GOP nomination for president, too.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said, “The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do – redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”
He continued, “The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature’s God on marriage than it can the law of gravity.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton noted the Obergefell decision “stops at the door of the First Amendment and our laws protecting religious liberty.”
While the dissenting justices in Obergefell didn’t advocate any specific action, their words were certainly cause for alarm for those who don’t subscribe to “same-sex marriage” advocacy.
Chief Justice John Roberts warned, “Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is – unlike the right imagined by the majority – actually spelled out in the Constitution.”
He continued, “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views. … The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion.”
Justice Antonin Scalia was more blunt.
“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the people of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
Justice Clarence Thomas said the majority decision simply “threatens the religious liberty our nation has long sought to protect.”
“Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process – as the Constitution requires – the people could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process,” he wrote.