What presidential candidates, others, are saying

The White House is lit up in rainbow colors in commemoration of the Supreme Court's ruling to legalize same-sex marriage Friday, June 26, 2015, in Washington.

WASHINGTON – The reaction by conservatives to the Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage has been swift, livid, principled and, most of all, defiant.

"I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch," declared former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee immediately after the ruling. "We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."

Referring to the narrow 5-4 decision, the presidential candidate said, "The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do – redefine marriage."

"The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity. ... This ruling is not about marriage equality; it's about marriage redefinition," he added.

GOP presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee

Huckabee also noted the ruling defied what most Americans believe.

"This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court's most disastrous decisions, and they have had many."

Cruz: Subject justices to elections

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, responded to this week's decisions upholding Obamacare and same-sex marriage with a broadside aimed directly at the Supreme Court justices.

Late Friday, the senator, who has argued numerous cases before the high court, wrote an op-ed in National Review in which he made a bold proposal: subjecting Supreme Court justices to elections.

"In order to provide the people themselves with a constitutional remedy to the problem of judicial activism and the means for throwing off judicial tyrants, I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the Justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections," wrote Cruz.

"Every Justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court."

The senator said such an extreme remedy was needed because, "The Court’s hubris and thirst for power have reached unprecedented levels. And that calls for meaningful action, lest Congress be guilty of acquiescing to this assault on the rule of law."

He argued, "Not only are the Court's opinions untethered from reason and logic, they are also alien to our constitutional system of limited and divided government. By redefining the meaning of common words, and redesigning the most basic human institutions, this Court has crossed from the realm of activism into the arena of oligarchy."

"The Court’s brazen action undermines its very legitimacy. This must stop. Liberty is in the balance," insisted Cruz.

What do YOU think? Is the marriage decision a threat to America's survival? Sound off in today's WND poll!

Bachmann: Millennia of truth not altered

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told WND, "No matter what, the Court's ruling does not upend millennia of truth. Many Americans will choose to follow God's ways rather than this Court and they should suffer no penalty for doing so.

"The Court has flung open the gate to lawsuits from those pushing the gay agenda against those who disagree with same-sex marriage," she concluded.

Gohmert: 'May God forgive them'

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, reacted with guns blazing, calling the ruling a "civilization-changing decision that destroys our nation’s heritage of biblical marriage."

"May God forgive our Supreme Court majority for its arrogance and its self-apotheosis.”

Invoking biblical history, he warned, "Both Moses and Jesus stated that it was God’s law that 'a man will leave his father and mother and a woman will leave her home and the two will come together as one.' That defined marriage ... The Supreme Court ruling is heartbreaking for the turmoil it will mean for our nation’s future."

Gohmert contended two justices should have recused themselves, observing, "It is clear beyond any doubt that Justices Kagan and Ginsberg have held exceedingly strong opinions that same-sex marriages were constitutional by virtue of their having performed them."

He further warned that "if Moses, Jesus, and contributors to the Bible were correct, God’s hand of protection will be withdrawn as future actions from external and internal forces will soon make clear."

"I will do all I can to prevent such harm, but I am gravely fearful that the stage has now been set," he said.

King blasts 'extreme judicial overreach'

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, called the decision "another example of extreme judicial overreach."

"If gay marriage is to be the policy of this land, that needs to be a decision made by the people through their elected representatives, not by judicial fiat. This country cannot tolerate a Supreme Court that would impose its will on the rest of this country."

King blasted the high court's history of trying to settle social issues, noting the "Dred Scott decision that was supposed to put an end to slavery" led to civil war, Roe v. Wade resulted in the deaths of millions, and, in response to the decision that took prayer out of public schools, "We simply bowed and genuflected to the Supreme Court and decided we won't pray in our public school because the Supreme Court has told us that, somehow, in the Constitution it says that we can't."

"The Supreme Court has a terrible record in trying to transform society and put an end to issues. The only way to put an end to an issue is when it's the will of the people," concluded King.

"The Supreme Court has become a Supreme Legislature," declared Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. "They have not only rewritten the laws of the 50 United States, but have redefined a sacred and ancient institution."

He noted the framers "did not authorize judges to amend the Constitution. Five judges have neither the moral nor legal authority to decide for themselves that the heritage which gave birth to our nation should be supplanted with their own fleeting views of contemporary events."

"The civilization we flourish in today did not spring out of nothing: it was carved out of the wilderness by families and communities knitted together by their faith and traditions, and set upon a foundation stretching back thousands of years," said Sessions.

He concluded, "It is not an act of courage but supreme arrogance to pretend that the wisdom of five judges is greater than all the men and women who have voted upon this issue in the 50 states, and the men and women whose convictions have defined the course of western civilization."

Scott Walker: "A grave mistake'

Presidential candidate Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin said in a statement, "I believe this Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake. Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that the author of this decision acknowledges 'has been with us for millennia.'

"As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.

"I call on the president and all governors to join me in reassuring millions of Americans that the government will not force them to participate in activities that violate their deeply held religious beliefs. No one wants to live in a country where the government coerces people to act in opposition to their conscience. We will continue to fight for the freedoms of all Americans."

Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal weigh in

Presidential candidate Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana said the ruling would "pave the way for an all-out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision."

"The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body," he said in a statement.

"If we want to save some money, let's just get rid of the court," Jindal added.

Another candidate, former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida was much more reserved, saying “the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision."

And GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson said he “strongly disagreed” with the decision but called it "now the law of the land."

He also called "on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected."

Alan Keyes: Court becomes 'corrupt, lawless'

WND columnist and former presidential candidate Alan Keyes said "the demonstrated prejudice of Justices Ginsburg and Kagan make this decision a corrupt and corrupting travesty."

"Both the states, respectively and the people have the right, indeed the duty, to reject and refuse to implement it," Keyes said. " ... For forcing this lawless travesty upon us, the five justices who joined in the opinion should be impeached, and the issue of their removal taken to the people in 2016."

U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R- Ohio, stated, "In today’s ruling, five judges overturned the sound public policy that was democratically enacted by millions of Americans in states across the country, including Ohio. This ruling follows what seems to be a recent trend on the Supreme Court: rulings based on the desires of the justices, and not the letter of the law and the framework of the Constitution."

He added, “I am also concerned that this ruling opens the door for discrimination against those who believe in traditional marriage, and I believe Congress must work to ensure that no American is forced to violate their beliefs on this important issue, to ensure that all Americans, regardless of their beliefs, can coexist peacefully."

Jordan signaled his fight to preserve religious liberty had just begun.

"That’s why I am co-sponsoring Senator (Mike) Lee and Congressman (Raul) Labrador’s First Amendment Defense Act, a bill that promotes tolerance for all Americans by preventing any federal agency from discriminating against any individual, association, or business based on their marriage views.”

Lee said in a statement to WND that the focus of opponents "now must be on defending these crucial rights of conscience."

The Utah senator said five justices "took a vital question about the future of American society out of the public square, imposing the views of five unelected judges on a country that is still in the midst of making up its mind about marriage."

"That is unfortunate, but it is not the end of the discussion, as Americans of good faith who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman will continue to live as witnesses to that truth," he said.

Lee said he is "heartened by the majority’s reassurance that the religious liberty rights of all Americans, including those who advocate a traditional view of marriage, must be protected."

"As Justice Kennedy states in the decision, ‘the First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.'"

Labrador said in a statement, "Today, a slim majority of the Supreme Court took away the right of the people of each state to define marriage. The decision turns the principles of democracy on their head. As Justice Scalia correctly states in his dissent, our founding documents gave the citizens of this great nation the 'freedom to govern themselves.' That freedom was taken away today in the name of ‘liberties’ not mentioned in the constitution."

“The decision makes it all the more important that Congress move to protect the religious liberty of those who believe in traditional marriage. No American should be penalized for following their religious beliefs or moral convictions."

'No one can change what marriage is'

Rep. Gary Palmer, R-Ala., strongly disagreed with the decision but said it is "important to remember that in a larger sense, neither the Supreme Court nor any government entity can redefine marriage, because the definition of marriage pre-exists government."

"No one can change the fundamental nature of what marriage is: the union of a man and woman and the formation of family which is the foundation of every civilization," Palmer said.

"Because of this ruling I have grave concerns about the assault against the religious liberties of the millions of Americans for whom marriage is a religious institution and will always remain one. Congress should act to ensure that the religious liberties of all Americans are protected so that no one is ever be forced or coerced into violating their conscience.”

Also disappointed with the ruling, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., observed "During oral arguments the Court stated that there is a millennia of history for traditional marriage and that the issue has historically been decided by the people, not the courts. Two years ago, the Supreme Court even ruled that marriage policy is a state issue, but today they reversed themselves and redefined marriage over the objection of millions of people."

He added, "For people who live by the clear teaching of many different faith traditions and people who simply believe in the sanctity of marriage, it is essential that their views are respected."

"I am disappointed by today’s Supreme Court decision,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. “It is unfortunate that the Court took it upon itself to decide for the people what was being appropriately debated and decided in the states through the democratic process."

President Obama, who claimed to oppose same-sex marriage when elected in 2008, had a different take, tweeting: "Today is a big step in our march toward equality. Gay and lesbian couples now have the right to marry, just like anyone else. #LoveWins."

Hillary Clinton 'celebrates courage of LGBTs'

First lady Michelle Obama tweeted, "This decision recognizes the fundamental truth that our love is all equal. Today is a great day for America. #LoveWins."

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tweeted, "Proud to celebrate a historic victory for marriage equality—& the courage & determination of LGBT Americans who made it possible."

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley tweeted, "So grateful to the people of MD for leading the way on this important issue of human dignity and equality under the law."

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders tweeted, "For far too long, our justice system has marginalized the gay community, and I am very glad the Court has finally caught up to the American people."

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, sent an email to supporters with the subject line, "Love won."

"Today is a historic day," she said, "for everyone who can now marry the person they love no matter where they live, but also for all of us who are invested in the advancement of equality. Thanks to today's decision, same-sex couples will have their marriages recognized in every state and can no longer be discriminated against for wanting to adopt a child -- just like any other married couple in this country."

"This is a big day, and such a wonderful way to end a month when we're already celebrating our pride," she added.

Vice President Joe Biden said he and his wife "couldn’t be prouder."

"Over the years — in their homes, on our staff, on the frontlines of war, and in houses of worship — Jill and I have befriended countless gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans who share a love for their partners constrained only by social stigma and discriminatory laws."

Ultra-leftist filmmaker Michael Moore appeared to be under the impression the court had decriminalized homosexuality, tweeting, "For those who just wanted to hold someone's hand in public but couldn't; for all who wanted 2 steal a kiss on a sunny day, THIS day is for u."

But conservatives pointed out that while the Supreme Court may agree with the president and his fellow progressives, most Americans do not.

'Five justices just overturned the vote of 50 million Americans'

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said, "Five justices on the Supreme Court have overturned the votes of 50 million Americans and demanded that the American people walk away from millennia of history and the reality of human nature.

"No court can overturn natural law. Nature and Nature's God, hailed by the signers of our Declaration of Independence as the very source of law, cannot be usurped by the edict of a court, even the United States Supreme Court.

"Marriage is rooted not only in human history, but also in the biological and social reality that children are created by, and do best when raised by, a mother and a father. No court ruling can alter this truth.

"It is folly for the Court to think that it has resolved a controversial issue of public policy. By disenfranchising 50 million Americans, the Court has instead supercharged this issue.

"Just as with Roe v. Wade in 1973, the courts will not have the final say on this profound social matter. The American people will stand up for their right to have a voice and a vote, especially as they experience the ways in which redefining marriage fundamentally impairs their freedom to live and work in accordance with their beliefs.

"We will not lapse into silence but will continue to speak uncompromisingly for the truth about what marriage is, always has been, and always will be: the union of one man and one woman," concluded Perkins.

Franklin Graham: 'God could bring judgment'

Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Rev. Billy Graham, was polite in his dissent but issued an ominous warning in a Facebook post.

"With all due respect to the court, it did not define marriage, and therefore is not entitled to re-define it."

Graham told Fox News, “I believe God could bring judgment upon America."

'Get ready...there will be persecution'

And he warned that Christians should be prepared for persecution in the aftermath of the ruling.

"You better be ready and you better be prepared because it’s coming," Graham said.“There will be persecution of Christians for our stand."

“I’m disappointed because the government is recognizing sin,” he added. “This court is endorsing sin. That’s what homosexuality is – a sin against God.”

“If pastors are going to be forced to provide marriage services for gay couples, I’m not going to do it,” Graham defiantly declared.

Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King said, "The Supreme Court has spoken and ruled from a position of common law - human law - that gay and lesbian couples have a fundamental right to marry. This is the highest rule that humans can make. Yet this is not the final word."

She reflected, "In the end, natural law, God's law will always trump common law. Do not fear or be confused or deceived. Remain prayerful. Keep looking up. God will have the final Word in this matter."

Rick Santorum tweeted, "Today, 5 unelected judges redefined the foundational unit of society. Now it is the people's turn to speak."

Rubio, Fiorina not against gay marriage, just court deciding

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., did not appear to oppose same-sex marriage as much as the manner in which it was enforced.

He stated, “I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman."

Then he added, "People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court. This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years."

A presidential candidate, Rubio also stated, “The next president and all in public office must strive to protect the First Amendment rights of religious institutions and millions of Americans whose faiths hold a traditional view of marriage. This is a constitutional duty, not a political opinion. Our nation was founded on the human right of religious freedom, and our elected leaders have a duty to protect that right by ensuring that no one is compelled by law to violate their conscience.

Lindsey Graham respects the court's decision

Another presidential candidate, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called himself a "proud defender of traditional marriage," but said he will "respect the Court's decision."

GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina posted a mixed message on Facebook, saying although she's always supported "equal benefits and rights" under the law, "I do not agree that the Court can or should redefine marriage."

"This is only the latest example of an activist Court ignoring its constitutional duty to say what the law is and not what the law should be," said Fiorina. "I believe that responsibility should have remained with states and voters where this conversation has continued in churches, town halls, and living rooms around the country."

GOP presidential candidate and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry tweeted, "I’m a firm believer in traditional marriage, and I also believe the 10th Amendment leaves it to each state to decide this issue."

Donald Trump blames Bush

Also running for president, Donald Trump tweeted, "Once again the Bush-appointed Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has let us down. Jeb pushed him hard! Remember!"

Gov. Chris Chritie, R-N.J., said, "I believe marriage is between one man and one woman," and maintained, "Those changes should be done by a vote of the people," not by the legislature or the courts.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, "All human beings are created equal by God and thus deserve to be treated with love, dignity and respect. I am, however, disappointed that the Supreme Court disregarded the democratically-enacted will of millions of Americans by forcing states to redefine the institution of marriage. My views are based on my upbringing and my faith. I believe that marriage is a sacred vow between one man and one woman, and I believe Americans should be able to live and work according to their beliefs."

Rev. Dan Cummins, founder of the annual "Washington: A Man of Prayer" event, authorized by Boehner, in which lawmakers and religious leaders offer prayers in the Capitol, called the ruling "a watershed moment in democracy and the demise of the greatest nation in human history."

"The Supreme Court has over reached its Constitutional authority and Congress must reign it back within its jurisdictional boundaries. We are at this place because the pastors of America have failed the Church of Jesus and the people of America. There is no one else to blame. With prayer and dedicated action we must elect a Christian president in 16 and pray for the opportunities to appoint righteous justices on the Supreme bench. We are living in prophetic times. Better start reading the book of Revelation. We're here folks."

Andrew Beckwith, president of Massachusetts Family Institute, lamented, “Tragically, the court has elevated the sexual preferences of adults over the needs of children, the constitutions of a majority of the states, and the religious freedom of all.”

“With the Court’s decision today,” noted MFI President Emeritus Kris Mineau, “we see the completion of a nationwide erosion of the people’s right to decide for themselves what marriage is.”

AFA: Court bows to political correctness

“This morning’s ruling rejects not only thousands of years of time-honored marriage but also the rule of law in the United States,” said American Family Association President Tim Wildmon. “In states across the nation, voters acted through the democratic process to protect marriage and the family. Yet, courts around the country chose to disregard the will of the people in favor of political correctness and social experimentation."

Wildmon continued: "And we witnessed firsthand the consequences, as individuals were repeatedly targeted by the government for not actively supporting homosexual marriage. Sadly, our nation’s highest Court, which should be a symbol of justice, has chosen instead to be a tool of tyranny, elevating judicial will above the will of the people."

“There is no doubt that this morning’s ruling will imperil religious liberty in America, as individuals of faith who uphold time-honored marriage and choose not to advocate for same-sex unions will now be viewed as extremists," he added.

"But to the Court, we send this unequivocal message: We will continue to uphold God’s plan for marriage between one man and one woman, and we call on all Christians to continue to pray for the nation, and for those whose religious liberties will be directly impacted by this ruling.”

Filmmaker and best-selling author Ray Comfort, producer of the new movie "Audacity," which asserts that gay unions are not “marriage,” said that the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage doesn’t make it marriage in God’s eyes.

“Only one man and one woman can be united in the institution of marriage,” Comfort said. “Since the beginning of time, that’s the only union that ‘God has joined together. A handful of justices may legalize the union between people of the same sex—and perhaps eventually multiple people—but redefining this as ‘marriage’ would be like me declaring that my VW Beetle is a Lamborghini. The two are nothing like each other. To believe otherwise is to deceive myself. Marriage is an institution created by God and pictures the relationship between Christ and His holy bride, the Church, and we cannot redefine it to suit our whims.”

A setback for biblical truth

Author and religion and culture expert Alex McFarland said the decision is a setback for biblical truth and will negatively impact religious freedom.

“Today’s atrocious Supreme Court decision took the definition of marriage out of the hands of the people—and out of the Bible,” McFarland said. “The fact is that marriage is biblical, it’s a gift from God, and no one should have the power to change its definition or meaning because of societal trends and perceived cultural shifts. God was the first to define it in the Garden of Eden and He should be the last to define it. It’s a sad commentary on society when nine human beings have the power to change God’s laws for an entire nation.”

McFarland, who also serves as director for Christian Worldview and Apologetics at the Christian Worldview Center of North Greenville University in Greenville, South Carolina, added: “Even in spite of the decision, states must now work to protect the religious rights of their residents. Freedom is nothing without the right to make decisions and act accordingly on faith-based beliefs, if a person so chooses.”

The non-profit legal group Liberty Counsel said even though the court "invented a 'fundamental right' for same-sex individuals to 'marry' ... the misguided majority of the Court did manage to get one thing right."

"They reaffirmed the right of the People to disagree with the Court's ruling: '[I]t must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.'"

As WND reported three weeks ago, prominent Christian and Jewish leaders warned the Supreme Court justices in a full-page ad in major newspapers that they would not honor any decision that violates the "biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman."

The statement by the leaders – who include Franklin Graham, James Dobson, Frank Pavone, Don Wildmon, Jerry Boykin, Alveda King and Alan Keyes – appeared in a full-page ad in the Washington Post, USA Today and other papers.

"We affirm that marriage, as existing solely between one man and one woman, precedes civil government. Though affirmed, fulfilled and elevated by faith, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based solely on religion but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart," the leaders said in the ad.

"We implore this court to not step outside of its legitimate authority and unleash religious persecution and discrimination against people of faith. We will be forced to choose between the state and our conscience, which is informed by clear biblical and church doctrine and the natural created order."

Their conclusion?

"We will not honor any decision by the Supreme Court which will force us to violate a clear biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman."

The statement was signed by dozens of leaders whose organizations represent tens of millions.

All you need to know about the attacks on marriage is in "Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left has Sabotaged Family and Marriage," by Paul Kengor.

Two justices, Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg, already had publicly advocated for same-sex "marriage" by performing ceremonies but refused to recuse themselves from the case.

It already is recognized in 36 states, most of which have been ordered by federal judges to take that step in defiance of their own voter-approved constitutional amendments or laws.

In only one state, Alabama, has there been significant resistance. The state Supreme Court there ordered officials who issue marriage licenses to follow the state constitution and issue them only to male-female couples.

The ad states, "We the undersigned have joined together to present our unified message and plea to the justices of the United States Supreme Court regarding the matter of marriage.

"We are Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christian pastors, clergy, lay leaders and Jewish leaders, who collectively represent millions of people in our specific churches, parishes, denominations, synagogues and media ministry outreaches."

They described anything other than biblical marriage as "an unjust law, as Martin Luther King Jr. described such laws in his letter from the Birmingham jail."

They said they will choose the Bible.

"On this choice, we must pledge obedience to our Creator. While there are many things we can endure, any attempt to redefine marriage is a line we cannot and will not cross."

They refer to DefendMarriage.org, where tens of thousands of Americans already have signed a related pledge.

The signers include: Matt C. Abbott of Renew America, Kirby Anderson of Point of View Talk Radio, Archbishop Foley Beach of the Anglican Church in North America, David and Jason Benham, Pastor Paul Blair of Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Oklahoma, Dean Broyles of the National Center for Law and Policy, Kevin Burke of Priests for Life, Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, David Crow of Restore America, Steve Deace of USA Radio Network, former Rep. Tom DeLay, Elaine Donnelly of Center for Military Readiness, Deacon Keith Fournier of Catholic Online, Pastor Jim Garlow of Pastors Rapid Response Team, Pastor John Hagee of Cornerstone Church, Fr. Mousa Hadaa of St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel, Bishop E.W. Jackson, Bishop Harry Jackson Jr., Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America and Pastor Rick Scarborough of Vision America.

The "Marriage Pledge" states: "We will view any decision by the Supreme Court or any court the same way history views the Dred Scott and Buck v. Bell decisions. Our highest respect for the rule of law requires that we not respect an unjust law that directly conflicts with higher law. A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order."

It continues: "Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same government will then enforce such an action with the police power of the state. This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights. The precedent established will leave no room for any limitation on what can constitute such a redefined notion of marriage or human sexuality. We cannot and will not allow this to occur on our watch."

Here's your chance to read James Dobson's classics, including "Bringing up Girls," "When God Doesn't Make Sense" and "Bringing Up Boys."

WND previously reported when Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel warned of the consequences of same-sex marriage.

"Immediately, when elevated to that level of a constitutionally protected category, [same-sex marriage] is given the same status as race. What you cannot legally do with respect to race, you will not be able to do legally with respect to same-sex unions and sexual immorality," he said.

"Think of race in the context of religious expression or conscience expression and replace it with sexual immorality, transsexualism or so-called gender identity. For example, churches and other religious organizations are exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of federal, state or local nondiscrimination laws. But they are not exempted from the race provisions. So Catholics can hire Catholics, and Baptists can hire Baptists, but they cannot hire only 'white' Catholics or only 'white' Baptists. They would face significant penalties. You can't have separate restrooms or drinking fountains for people of a different color. If a church did that they would be liable for a significant amount of damages because of discrimination on the basis of race.

"Same-sex marriage or laws including sexual orientation or gender identity as a non-discrimination category directly impact religious organizations and churches. If a man wants to use the women's restroom and a church official told him he could not, then that act would be like telling people of color they cannot use the 'white only' restroom. You will also have the same issues with tax exemption over sexual preference as you have now over race," he said.

The Alabama Supreme Court, in its own decision on marriage, cited the U.S. Supreme Court's Windsor ruling, which struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The judges noted: "An open question exists as to whether Windsor's 'equal dignity' notion works in the same direction toward state laws concerning marriage as it did toward DOMA. The Windsor court stated that 'the history of DOMA's enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute."

The Alabama court wrote: "In Windsor, New York's law allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses. Thus, the 'dignity' was conferred by the state's own choice, a choice that was 'without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.'"

But it then raised a question: Why, if New York could make that choice, would Alabama be deprived of exactly the same choice?

"The problem with DOMA was that it interfered with New York's 'sovereign' choice," the Alabama court said. "Alabama 'used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relations' and made a different 'sovereign' choice than New York. If New York was free to make that choice, it would seem inconsistent to say that Alabama is not free to make its own choice, especially given that 'the recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.'"

Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth

Related stories"

'I fear judgment befalling America'

Scalia: Marriage ruling 'threat to democracy'

'I will not acquiesce to an imperial court'

Churches now in LGBT lobby's sights?

Supreme Court: 'Gay marriage' legal nationwide

The Big List of marriage-ruling reactions

Pastors sound off on marriage ruling

Schlafly: Marriage ruling 'not the end, it's the beginning'

Cruz amendment makes Supreme Court subject to elections

Resistance! No marriage licenses for anyone