NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Supreme Court

2016 March for Marriage Set for June 25 in Washington, DC

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 8, 2016
Contact: Joseph Grabowski (202) 457-8060 x-110 | [email protected]


March Will Protest Supreme Court Gay ‘Marriage’ Decision and Obama Transgender Decrees; Call on Congress to Enact Legal Protections

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced that the 2016 March for Marriage has been scheduled for Saturday, June 25th in Washington, DC. Marchers will walk from the US Capitol building to the US Supreme Court. Tens of thousands of people have attended previous marches in support of traditional marriage.

“The Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling redefining marriage will go down as one of the most infamous, illegitimate rulings in the Court’s history, along the lines of their decision in Dred Scott to sanction slavery,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “The narrow 5-4 majority ignored precedent and invented a constitutional ‘right’ to gay ‘marriage’ so that these activist judges could impose their own values on the nation. In the process, they stripped over 50 million voters and countless legislators in states across America of their sovereign right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

Supporters of marriage are urged to attend the March from all across the country. More information including a route map and schedule is available at www.marriagemarch.org.

Brown noted that it didn’t take long following the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage for LGBT activists and their chief ally President Obama to push the next element of their agenda – transgender bathroom rules. “The LGBT extremists and the Obama administration are attempting to defy human nature itself and declare that gender can be self-directed and chosen based on ‘identity,’” Brown said. “Obama is fighting to ensure that when someone chooses to declare an identity different from reality, such as a man claiming to be a woman, all of society will be expected to bow in compliance and succumb to every demand, including allowing men into private facilities like restrooms and showers reserved for girls and women. It’s outrageous and it must be stopped.”

NOM is also a strong supporter of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) to provide legal protections for supporters of marriage, protecting them against governmental discrimination. The proposal (HR 2802/S.1598) has 170 sponsors and co-sponsors in the House and 38 in the Senate, but has not been scheduled for a hearing. Encouraging support for this measure is another goal of the March for Marriage this year.

“It’s time that Congress pass the First Amendment Defense Act so that people of faith do not have to worry about choosing between protecting their livelihood and upholding their beliefs about marriage,” Brown concluded.

# # #

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, please contact:
Joseph Grabowski, [email protected], (202) 457-8060 x-110.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Sen. Ted Cruz Writes: No Obama Nominee To Court Will Be Considered By Senate

In a strong op-ed to the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Ted Cruz has laid out a powerful case why President Obama's expected nominee to the Supreme Court should not be confirmed by the US Senate. Instead, the nomination  of the next Justice should wait until the People have a say through the election of the next president.

In the op-ed, Cruz points out what is at stake with the appointment of the next Supreme Court Justice. He predicts that an Obama nominee will subscribe to the president's view that the constitution is a "living document" and should evolve with the times. As such the Second Amendment could be eviscerated in terms of individual gun rights, as would key elements of the First Amendment, and we will have a series of illegitimate decisions that invent "constitutional rights" such as those that redefined marriage and created a right to abortion.

Senator Cruz lays out a compelling historical case against the Senate moving a nominee forward in the final year of a lame-duck president. Cruz noted that you have to go back to 1888 to find a circumstance where the Senate controlled by the party opposite the president confirmed a Supreme Court nominee this late in a presidential term. He notes that then-Senator Obama held a similar view that a justice should not be confirmed under these circumstances, as did Joe Biden when he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, as did Harry Reid the current Democratic leader in the Senate and Chuck Schumer the incoming Democratic leader.

NOM has endorsed Senator Cruz for president because he is a champion for marriage and because he, better than any other candidate, knows the importance of making Supreme Court appointees. Not only did Cruz serve as Solicitor General of Texas and personally argue numerous cases before the US Supreme Court, but he was once a clerk to then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist and knows the workings of the Supreme Court intimately.

The Great Heart of Antonin Scalia

Many thanks to NOM friend Ed Whelan for passing along this beautiful piece by Jeffrey Tucker that gives us a glimpse of the heart of Antonin Scalia -- not as a jurist but as a human being. Tucker writes:

It was a spring afternoon some years ago, and he was attending church services, sitting in a back pew, holding his prayer book in his hands. The Mass had ended and most people had gone. He was still saying prayers, alone in the back pew.

He finally got up and began to walk out. There were no reporters, nobody watching. There was only a woman who had been attending the same services. She had no idea who he was. I was a bystander, and I’m certain he didn’t know I was there.

What was a bit unusual about this woman: she had lashing sores on her face and hands. They were open sores. There was some disease, and not just physically. She behaved strangely, a troubled person that you meet in large cities and quickly walk away from. A person to avoid and certainly never touch.

For whatever reason, she walked up to Justice Scalia, who was alone. He took her hands, though they were full of sores. She leaned in to say something, and she began to cry.

He held her face next to his, and she talked beneath her tears that were now streaming down his suit. He didn’t flinch. He didn’t try to get away. He just held her while she spoke. This lasted for perhaps more than 5 minutes. He closed his eyes while she spoke, gripping her back with his hand.

He didn’t recoil. He stood there with conviction. And love.

There were no cameras and no other onlookers besides myself, and he had no idea I was there.

Finally she was finished. What he said comforted her, and she gained composure. She pulled away, ready to go. He held her rough, sore-filled hands and had a few final words that I could not hear. He gave her some money.

And then she walked away.

And then he walked away, across the green grass, toward the Supreme Court building, alone. He was probably preparing for an afternoon of work.

***
You can read Jeffrey Tucker's entire article here.

In Memoriam to Justice Scalia



Dear Marriage Supporter,

We all were shocked on Saturday to learn of the unexpected passing of Justice Antonin Scalia during a hunting trip in Texas. Justice Scalia was a giant of a man in every way. He was a faithful Catholic, loving husband and devoted father. As a lawyer and judge, his towering intellect helped shape the law and counter the unceasing pressure by liberal jurists to move the country to the left based on their concept of an "evolving" constitution.

While I didn't know Justice Scalia personally, I know some in his immediate family, including his son, Fr. Paul Scalia, a Roman Catholic priest who has been a strong and consistent ally in the fight for marriage. The Scalia family is a model for faith, love, togetherness and service. These are values instilled in the family by its patriarch, a genuinely good and decent man. Our prayers go out to the Scalia family.

Justice Scalia was often referred to as a conservative, but in reality he was a constitutionalist. He profoundly believed that judges were duty-bound to rule on cases according to the original intent of the constitution, not based on sympathies toward what a judge thought the law should be.

Justice Scalia was a fierce defender of traditional marriage and continually resisted his colleagues' various attempts to redefine marriage at the behest of gay activists. He did so not because the preferences of judges like Anthony Kennedy were opposite his own, but because it is incongruous to believe that the US Constitution somehow includes a fundamental constitutional right to gay 'marriage.' Scalia believed that marriage rests with the democratic process and not with judges imposing a particular view of the institution that aligns with the opinion of elite society, from which judges are selected.

Scalia used his immense intellect to craft his opinions in ways that would gather attention and resonate with the legal community, and the American people. And he issued clear and unmistakable warnings of the direction in which the liberal wing of the Court was determined to move the nation when it comes to sexual morality and marriage.

For example, when the majority of his colleagues, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled in Romer v Evans that the voters of Colorado could not prohibit the granting of special rights to homosexuals, Scalia took them to task for the abject lack of constitutional basis for the ruling. He reminded the Court that just ten years earlier in Bowers v. Hardwick they had ruled that there was no fundamental constitutional right for someone to engage in homosexual acts and that the constitution had not changed during the intervening decade. Despite this, the liberal Kennedy wing decreed that it is unconstitutional for voters to prevent special rights to be granted to gays and lesbians because doing so supposedly amounted to animus and discrimination, and that expressing moral disapproval of homosexual conduct was akin to racial and religious bigotry. To this, Justice Scalia chastised the majority for its utter lack of judicial basis: "The Court today… employs a constitutional theory heretofore unknown to frustrate Colorado's reasonable effort to preserve traditional American moral values…But the Court today has done so, not only by inventing a novel and extravagant constitutional doctrine to take the victory away from traditional forces, but even by verbally disparaging as bigotry adherence to traditional attitudes."

The constitutional battle over marriage and traditional American values came more clearly into focus in the case of Lawrence v Kansas, which revisited whether states could penalize people for engaging in homosexual conduct such as sodomy (which was at issue in the Bowers case years before). Once again, Justice Anthony Kennedy led the majority to strike down state laws penalizing sodomy, and once again Justice Scalia dissented — not because he personally favored penalties for homosexual conduct but because the US Constitution simply does not contain a fundamental right to homosexuality. Scalia skewered Kennedy and the majority for basing their decision not on the constitution but on the observation that the Bowers ruling had been repeatedly publicly criticized. If the existence of ongoing public criticism was the basis for constitutional law, Scalia pointed out that Roe v Wade should be overturned on the same basis.

In his dissent in Lawrence, Justice Scalia presciently warned that the ruling would inevitably lead to gay marriage and the striking down of laws against polygamy, bigamy, adult incest and bestiality because the Court was effectively banning states from considering the morality of sexual practices as an intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual. "[The Lawrence] opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned."

Keep in mind that Justice Scalia's warning about the undermining of the constitutional basis for preserving marriage was issued in 2003 at a time when not a single state in the US allowed gay 'marriage.' A year later, just as Scalia predicted would happen, Massachusetts became the first and the legal battle was on.

Obviously, Justice Scalia's warnings concerning marriage have come to pass. When Anthony Kennedy led another 5-4 majority to dismantle the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the Windsor case, Scalia again took the majority to task for ignoring the constitution. He went on to warn us that the next step would be to impose gay 'marriage' on the entire nation. The only thing that would prevent it, he promised, was the Court's own sense of what they could get away with. Indeed, last June another bare majority of the Court led by Anthony Kennedy decided they could get away with it and ruled to impose same-sex 'marriage' on the nation.

With Justice Scalia's sudden passing, selecting his replacement now becomes one of the central issues in the 2016 presidential election. Thank God that we were successful in impacting the 2014 elections because we were able to raise the resources needed to elect conservatives like Tom Cotton in Arkansas and Thom Tillis in North Carolina. Thanks to you, a conservative US Senate means we're now in a position to block the confirmation of any appointee that Barack Obama might put forward.

You can absolutely count on President Obama to do everything in his power to put a liberal judicial activist on the Court so that he can push the nation even further to the left. If that happens, it will be exceedingly difficult to revisit the marriage ruling, or to protect the right of states to limit abortion, or to fight against polygamy and adult incest, or to protect religious liberty. The appointment of the next Supreme Court justice has massive implications for virtually every issue that occupies current public debate — the right to bear arms, protecting our borders, the fight against terrorism, economic liberty, privacy and security, etc.

That is why we absolutely MUST elect a proven conservative champion as president who we can trust without question to appoint a constitutionalist like the late Justice Scalia. Sen. Ted Cruz is that candidate. A constitutional scholar and former US Supreme Court clerk and Solicitor General of Texas, Sen. Cruz has personally argued numerous cases before the US Supreme Court.

No other candidate running for president has Sen. Cruz' depth of knowledge, understanding or experience in the judicial realm. No other candidate has the record that can assure us without question that he will appoint someone like Antonin Scalia and not someone like Anthony Kennedy.

In fact, some of those running, like Donald Trump, have a record that suggests they could be as bad as Obama when it comes to Supreme Court appointments. Trump has even pointed to his sister as someone who would make a great Supreme Court justice. Trump's sister, a federal judge, has ruled in favor of partial birth abortion — the gruesome killing of a child in the process of being born. I can't imagine the damage a Trump appointee would do to the nation.

I am terribly saddened by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, but his passing puts into exceedingly sharp focus the incredible importance of this presidential election. This Supreme Court vacancy is very likely not going to be the only one that the next president will be able to fill. Thus, the outcome of the presidential election this year will impact the nation not just for the four year term of the president, but for generations to come.

Please pray for the Scalia family, and pray for the nation that citizens will awaken to see the importance of the race before us, and elect a proven champion as president. The future of America depends on it.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


PS — The stakes in the election are now so much higher than they were before, and so is the importance of NOM being able to aggressively influence the public debate concerning marriage and religious liberty. Please make a generous financial contribution so that we may be effective during this critical time. Thank you.


Donate Today

BREAKING: Alabama Chief Justice Orders State Judges To Refrain From Issuing Same-Sex 'Marriage' Licenses

BREAKING NEWS: Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has ordered state probate judges to continue to enforce a previous ruling of the state Supreme Court barring the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite the ruling of the US Supreme Court purportedly imposing same-sex marriage on the nation. Justice Moore's ruling will remain in place until the full state Supreme Court considers whether state judges are bound to continue to uphold the state's constitution, which provides that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

While a narrow majority of the US Supreme Court purported to redefine marriage for the country in the Obergefell ruling, the case they considered only involved four states in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the Obergefell ruling, several developments have called into question the SCOTUS majority's claimed scope of their ruling.

A compelling statement issued by over seventy legal scholars made the case that the Obergefell ruling utterly lacked any constitutional basis, was anti-constitutional and illegitimate. They declared that state officials should consider the Obergefell ruling to be binding only on the specific parties to that case.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that that the Obergefell ruling did not directly invalidate the marriage laws of states under its jurisdiction.

And a District Court judge in Kansas was even more direct, ruling that Obergefell did not directly strike down Kansas law limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

These legal developments are consistent with the developing resistance in America to the Supreme Court's attempt to legislate from the bench when it comes to marriage, ignoring the federal constitution in the process and inventing out of thin air a "right" to same-sex 'marriage.'

The American people reject judicial activism of the US Supreme Court and their attempt to redefine marriage. They continue to support marriage as it has existed throughout our nation's history, the union of one man and one woman.

 

How the Left Has Sabotaged Marriage and Family

Dr. Paul Kengor, professor of political science at Grove City College, writes a fascinating piece in today's Daily Signal about the involvement of the American Communist Party in pushing the LGBT agenda in America. Dr. Kengor says:

"On June 26, 2015, four of the Supreme Court’s liberals joined Justice Anthony Kennedy in discovering a new right to same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution, one thereby imposed upon all 50 states.

In response, of course, liberals were jubilant. Their leader, the one who promised to fundamentally transform America, responded by literally illuminating the nation’s house in rainbow colors.

Americans saw all of that. They saw the pictures of their fundamentally transformed White House; they saw other culture-transformers dancing in the streets joyously rejecting what a great country once called the laws of nature and nature’s God...

But one thing that very few Americans saw, including the millions of same-sex marriage supporters who aren’t especially political or ideological, was the quite revealing celebration among some really radical quarters.

Among them, Communist Party USA and its publication, People’s World—successor to the Soviet-funded and directed Daily Worker—were thrilled with what Anthony Kennedy and friends had done.

For communists, this was a stunning victory, the securing of a long-elusive effort to vanquish the fixed marriage model set forth long ago by nature and the Creator. Indeed, if you thought the White House seemed eager to hoist the rainbow colors, you should have seen the American Communist Party.

In fact, the party of the red flag had been waving the rainbow flag before June 26, 2015. Communist Party USA has been pumping the full “LGBT” agenda for several years now."

Dr. Kengor goes on to detail numerous examples of how the Communist Party has promoted the LGBT agenda, saying, "We know that one is far more likely to see the rainbow flag at People’s World nowadays than a red flag with a hammer and sickle." Dr. Kengor attributes their activism to pursuit of their long-held desire to subvert religion and family. "For today’s communists, the “LGBT” agenda, especially on marriage, is the hammer and sickle to take down the natural, traditional, biblical, Western/Judeo-Christian model for marriage and family that they have long despised," he writes.

You can read the full article here.

There Is No Need to Deny Individuals Religious Liberty

As millions of Americans refuse to accept the illegitimate ruling of the US Supreme Court redefining marriage, the issue of how to deal with conscientious objectors has risen to the fore.

Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk jailed for refusing to violate her faith by participating in certifying a same-sex ‘marriage’ is perhaps the best known victim of the Court ruling, but she is only one of many who have been fined, fired, punished or put out of business. Similar punishments are taking place regarding religious groups who are unable to comply with Obamacare regulations because of their faith.

This article from The Federalist, written by our friends at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, may suggest one approach for policymakers to consider when it comes to accommodation. The best solution, of course, if for Congress and the states to pass the First Amendment Defense Act to prohibit government retaliation against supporters of marriage.

From The Federalist:

religious-liberty-can-be-accomodatedThere are hard cases of religious conscience, and then there are easy ones. When the government has lots of ways to govern without trampling religious belief, it should be an easy case. We saw one last week when a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Dordt College and other religious nonprofit organizations trying to follow their faith. These groups can’t participate in a web of government regulations that would provide life-terminating drugs to their employees. So the ministries must choose to violate their faith or violate the law, to the tune of millions in Internal Revenue Service fines.

It’s the same choice faced by the Little Sisters of the Poor. If the Little Sisters don’t comply with this contraceptive mandate, they face millions in IRS fines. This is a group that provides vital care for thousands of elderly poor—exactly the sort of care that should be supported and encouraged by the nation’s health-care laws.

. . .

The sad fact is that the government has a win-win solution at its fingertips. As a federal appeals court said in the Dordt College case last week, the government already operates exchanges where millions of Americans can obtain health coverage. Subsidies are available to those whose employers don’t provide health insurance.

This is how the government provides for those whose employers do not provide the generous health-care benefits many religious ministries already provide. The government could easily open those subsidies to any employees of religious groups who want the coverage not included in their employers’ plan. This would satisfy the government’s concerns, satisfy the ministries’ religious beliefs, and ensure that Americans still receive vital services from groups like the Little Sisters.

For that reason, the Eighth Circuit Court of appeals sided with religious ministries last week. Echoing a unanimous Supreme Court opinion on religious freedom, it said, “[I]f a less restrictive means is available for the Government to achieve its goals, the Government must use it.”

it-doesnt-have-to-be-that-wayAlthough the solution is easy, it will probably take another Supreme Court intervention to make it happen. Last week’s court decision disagrees with rulings from several other appeals courts, creating the circuit split that Supreme Court-watchers have been predicting. When federal appeals courts disagree on an important issue like this one, Supreme Court review is very likely. That court returns from its summer recess next week, and it will have to decide whether to take up the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor, East Texas Baptist University, and other religious ministries.

The Supreme Court has been friendly to religious freedom, with recent rulings in favor of Hobby Lobby on a similar challenge, a unanimous victory for religious prison inmates in Holt v. Hobbs, and several emergency orders protecting religious ministries from fines under the HHS mandate. Let’s hope the Court continues this trend, recognizing that when religious freedom and government regulations conflict, it does not have to be a zero-sum game.

Justice Scalia Stands Firm in His Views of Same-sex 'Marriage' Decision

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has not backed down in the slightest regarding his views of the Obergefell decision. The plainspoken, conservative justice has unabashedly condemned the Supreme Court’s decision to force same-sex 'marriage' to be permitted nationwide. As was recently evidenced in his speech at Rhodes College, Justice Scalia has no intention of rescinding his views that the current Supreme Court lineup is taking the nation’s highest court in “the wrong direction.” LifeSiteNews has the story:

Antonin_Scalia_Official_SCOTUS_PortraitJustice Scalia spoke Tuesday for Constitution Day at Rhodes College, where his grandson is a student, warning that the Supreme Court has become a "threat to democracy."

The 79-year-old Reagan appointee said he worries about the nation's highest court, because it is "headed in the wrong direction."

"Saying that the Constitution requires [homosexual] practice, which is contrary to the religious beliefs of many of our citizens," Scalia said – "I don't know how you can get more extreme than that."

Scalia described the Obergefell v. Hodges decision as the "furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants." He rhetorically asked, "Do you really want your judges to rewrite the Constitution?"

Scalia also noted that the make-up of the Supreme Court is "terribly unrepresentative of our country" and pointed out that a law degree does not qualify one to judge transcendent moral issues. "What is it that I learned at Harvard Law School that makes me peculiarly qualified to determine such profound moral and ethical questions as whether there should be a right to abortion, whether there should be same-sex marriage, whether there should be a right to suicide?" Scalia asked. "It has nothing to do with the law."

The conservative justice is well-known for his insistence that the judicial branch of government has the task of interpreting the law in light of the Constitution, not creating law from current cultural trends.

On June 26, the Supreme Court judge wrote his own dissent to the Obergefell decision. In what Church Militant calls "his most sharply worded dissent yet," Scalia called the decision an abuse of the judicial branch, which he said was usurping the authority of the legislative branch, and thus the will of the people.

Scalia's dissent described the Supreme Court's overreach in Obergefell as stepping outside the scope of its authority to dictate radical social policy – which properly is the domain of the democratic process. He wrote that the ruling was a "naked judicial claim to legislative – indeed, super-legislative – power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government."

All four dissenting judges – Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito – felt so strongly that each wrote his own dissent. "Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia wrote. He added that the decision lacks "even a thin veneer of law."

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine," Scalia dissented, "robs the People of ... the freedom to govern themselves."

"When the Supreme Court Oversteps Its Bounds, Citizens Are Right to Resist"

NOM’s chairman, John Eastman, expounds on the arguments surrounding the Kim Davis debacle, and how, “when the Supreme Court oversteps its bounds, citizens are right to resist”:

Image via CBSNews/REUTERS/WLEX/LEX18.COM

Image via CBSNews/REUTERS/WLEX/LEX18.COM

The double standard on display is palpable. I don’t recall Keegen or any of the other self-righteous, newfound devotees of the rule of law calling for the resignation of Kentucky’s attorney general when he refused to defend his state’s marriage law — or any of the other state attorneys general who did the same, from California’s Jerry Brown to Pennsylvania’s Kathleen Kane, and several others, including perhaps most notoriously Oregon’s Ellen Rosenblum, who was caught actively colluding with plaintiffs to ensure judicial invalidation of the Oregon marriage law she disliked.

“But Davis was refusing to comply with a decision of the Supreme Court,” it will be argued. So, too, did all those illustrious attorneys general. All of them refused to do their duty and defend their state’s man-woman marriage laws, even though the binding precedent of the Supreme Court at that time, a 1972 case called Baker v. Nelson, was that such laws were constitutionally valid.

Ms. Davis’s position has also been mischaracterized as asserting that because the Supreme Court’s decision is contrary to God’s authority, she cannot be compelled to comply with it and therefore can prevent same-sex couples from getting married in her county. Her position — so described — has been belittled by simpletons across the political spectrum as nothing more than the misguided stance of a crazy evangelical clinging to her Bible. But that is not her legal argument at all (however much merit it might have as a reaction to an illegitimate decision by the Supreme Court). Her actual argument is much more restrained.

Kentucky has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which expressly prevents the government from imposing a substantial burden on someone’s religious beliefs unless the government’s mandate is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. Because this lawsuit is pending in federal court, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which contains the same protection, is also applicable. Ms. Davis’s lawyers have simply argued that these federal and state laws require that her religious objection to issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses over her own name be accommodated.

. . .

Abraham Lincoln famously said, in his first inaugural address, that although judicial decisions are binding on the specific parties to a case, “the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

In short, Ms. Davis was much more faithful to her oath of office, and to the Constitution she vowed to support, than the federal judge who jailed her for contempt, the attorney general of the state who refused to defend Kentucky’s laws, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, who usurped the authority of the states and the more than 50 million voters who had recently reaffirmed the natural definition of marriage, in order to impose his own more “enlightened” views on the nation. One can only hope that Ms. Davis’s simple but determined act of civil disobedience will yet ignite the kind of reaction in the American people that is necessary to oppose such lawlessness, or at the very least bring forth a national leader who will take up the argument against judicial supremacy in truly Lincolnian fashion.

Visit National Review for the full article.

Oregon Judge Supports Traditional Marriage; Targeted By Investigation To Determine If He Is Unfit For Office

The nation has just witnessed the disturbing scene of a Christian clerk put into jail, because she did not want to be personally involved in licensing a same-sex ‘marriage’ since doing so would violate her deeply held religious beliefs. Now comes another story of gay activists attempting to destroy another official who similarly holds religious views that will not allow him to participate in same-sex ‘marriages.’

For the past year Marion County (Oregon) judge Vance Day has declined to solemnize any marriages because he does not want to participate in a gay ‘wedding.’ For this, he is now under official investigation against charges he is unfit for office. If found guilty he could be removed from office, costing him his livelihood and reputation for holding true to his religious convictions. This is the latest example of punishment of marriage supporters unleashed by the illegitimate decision of the US Supreme court to invent a “right” to same-sex ‘marriage’ and imposing it in every state without exception. The New York Times has the story:

ThinkstockPhotos-483608742Marion County Judge Vance Day is being investigated by a judicial fitness commission in part over his refusal to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds, a spokesman for the judge said.

When a federal court ruling in May 2014 made same-sex marriage legal in Oregon, Day instructed his staff to refer same-sex couples looking to marry to other judges, spokesman Patrick Korten said Friday.

Last fall, he decided to stop performing weddings altogether, aside from one in March that had long been scheduled, Korten said.

"He made a decision nearly a year ago to stop doing weddings altogether, and the principal factor that he weighed was the pressure that one would face to perform a same-sex wedding, which he had a conflict with his religious beliefs," Korten said.

In an email, Day declined to comment and referred questions to Korten.

The issue of same-sex weddings is "the weightiest" of several allegations against Day that are being investigated by the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability, Korten said.

He declined to detail any of the allegations, saying he didn't want to defy the commission, which considers complaints confidential until it is ready to make them public.

Kim Davis Stands Strong in the Face of an Unjust Law

The Kim Davis debacle presents the American public with something oddly reminiscent of events past. Pundits on both sides of the same-sex "marriage" debate have cited "the wrong side of history" as a reason to stop fighting for the truth about marriage. When put to the test of actual history, however, the argument holds no water. The Town Hall explains:

Image via New York Times/Ty Wright/Getty Images

Image via New York Times/Ty Wright/Getty Images

[One of] the main arguments from gay marriage proponents and conservatives who have given up the fight [is this:] The rule of law must be respected, and therefore everyone, from the clerk to the courts, must comply.

The rebuttal to this argument lies with Martin Luther King Jr., who sat in a jail cell for refusing to comply with Jim Crow: “An unjust law is no law at all.”

What defines an unjust law? One in which those who impose it do not comply with it. I would further add that any law which violates natural law or resists science or market systems falls into the same desiccated category. By the way, everyone seems hell-bent on forgetting that this national imposition of homosexual marriage did not occur from elected officials or democratic consensus, but the arbitrary turn of phrases from five unelected, unaccountable judges. Once again, former Arkansas Governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee had it right: “The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.”

The court which justified “separate but equal” would overturn itself fifty-six years later. Roe v. Wade is facing increasing resistance from science and technology, as well as moral and legal suasion, and has not yet crossed the fifty-year mark. The Obergefell decision is barely two months old, yet across the country Americans are not complying, including Kim Davis. How amazing and compelling that her act of nullification occurs in Kentucky, where Founding Father Thomas Jefferson directed his Resolutions against federal tyranny three hundred years ago.

...

Kim Davis, like civil rights activist Rosa Parks, refuses to comply with an unjust court ruling based on a misunderstanding of sexuality and marriage.

Kentucky Clerk Continues to Fight for Her Right to Refuse to Issue Marriage Licenses

Kim Davis, a Rowan County Clerk, has been granted a temporary stay on account of her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Until the case is resolved, Davis is not compelled by law to wed same-sex couples. If she loses her case against the state though, Davis could face fines and possibly jail for contempt of court. Kate Scanlon of The Daily Signal, explains Davis’ objection:

ThinkstockPhotos-451417063In an interview with The Daily Signal, Davis’ lawyer, Roger Gannam, senior litigation counsel at Liberty Counsel, an organization that provides free legal assistance in religious liberty cases, said that Bunning’s temporary stay is a “minor reprieve” for his client.

Gannam said that Rowan County’s marriage licenses are issued “under her name and her authority, so that is her religious objection.”

Gannam argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling requires only that states treat same-sex marriage as they do traditional marriage. Under Kentucky law, marriage licenses issued in any county are valid statewide. Therefore, there are over a hundred offices where the plaintiffs could obtain a marriage license.

“It’s certainly not the case that the plaintiffs are unable to get married.”

Gannam said that Davis’s religious beliefs should be accommodated.

. . .

Roger Severino, the director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, said, “When North Carolina faced a similar problem with its clerks, it passed a law allowing civil servants with religious objections to recuse themselves from all marriage licensing functions while at the same time ensuring that every qualified couple would still receive a timely marriage license.”

“It was a win-win and shows that the conscience rights of civil servants can and should be respected even after the Supreme Court’s sweeping redefinition of marriage,” Severino said.

As the States move forward from the Obergefell decision, judges and legislators need to treat everyone with equality. We must uphold the First Amendment and allow those issuing marriage license to recuse themselves when they feel they could personally breach their deeply held religious beliefs.

For original article, please visit The Daily Signal.

How to Argue in Defense of Marriage

What will proponents of the proper definition of marriage in the United States do now? How will we defend our religious freedoms? How can we convince legislators and our neighbors to accept marriage as the union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the protection of children? Taking holistic approach toward the issue of marriage, Ryan T. Anderson’s new book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Liberty, answers all of these questions.

ThinkstockPhotos-483371054The Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision was hasty, unpolished, and has ultimately made it possible for many more illicit attacks on marriage to filter their way through the legal system. Anderson’s book addresses these issues and offers solutions for preserving religious liberty, while seeking to overturn the Court’s decision. He offers three key points of immediate action:

1. We must call the court’s ruling in Obergefell what it is: judicial activism.
2. We must protect our freedom to speak and live according to the truth about marriage.
3. We must redouble our efforts to make the case for it in the public square.

In addition, his book takes an in-depth look at the history of marriage itself and affirms its biological truths. Taylor Brown of Juicy Ecumenism, aptly qualifies Anderson’s book:

Truth Overruled is a must-read.  It is a must-read for Christians who want to cogently, winsomely, and respectfully defend both traditional marriage and religious liberty. It is a must-read for non-Christian, religious Americans who also seek reasoned and well-informed defenses of marriage and religious liberty.  It is a must-read for those on the fence about marriage.  It is simply a must read all around.  Anderson presents a well-researched and well-rounded argument for the continued importance of both traditional marriage and the strong protection of religious liberty.  And he does all of this while being eminently respectful to those on the opposite side of the issue.  Anderson’s work is the polar opposite of “hateful,” “bigoted,” or “homophobic.”  It is a prime example of the Christian imperative to “speak the truth in love.”  Though it is the first book to be published on the SCOTUS ruling, it is in no way a lightweight treatment. With the e-book version currently available from Amazon and the print version due out by the end of August, I would highly recommend you pick up a copy.  It will be well worth your time.

If you’re looking to defend marriage in your home, workplace, or church, pick up Anderson’s book as soon as you can!

See Juicy Ecumenism for more.

Groups Urge Alabama Supreme Court to Stand Strong for Marriage

The Constitution is the highest law in the land, not the Supreme Court. When the courts err by issuing an illegitimate decision that lacks constitutional basis, local and state governments are not required to broadly apply them. For this reason, two additional groups are calling for the Alabama Supreme Court to resist the United States Supreme Court’s illegitimate ruling declaring traditional marriage laws to be unconstitutional and purportedly ordering every state to issue ‘marriage’ licenses to same-sex couples.

The groups compare disregarding the ruling to the way that the Wisconsin Supreme court disregarded the mandates of the Fugitive Slave Act and the infamous Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court. President Lincoln also refused to abide by that decision. These new filings are in addition to a filing by Liberty Counsel which similarly urged the state high court to ignore the Obergefell ruling. SFGATE reports on the situation:

ThinkstockPhotos-467245683The Alabama Policy Institute and the Alabama Citizens Action Program did not recommend what the court should do to resist the gay marriage decision.

At a minimum, the groups urged the Alabama justices to try to protect probate judges and their employees who don't want to issue the licenses on religious grounds.

"To require those individuals to participate in the solemnization and celebration of same-sex marriage is repugnant and antithetical to their religious convictions and conscience,” lawyers wrote.

Obergefell violates the First Amendment by forcing officials to act against their consciences. It is an illicit attack on the American way of life and it must be overturned.

Alabama Supreme Court Urged to Protect Religious Liberty

In a potentially significant development, Liberty Counsel has led a brief with the Alabama Supreme Court urging it to ignore the SCOTUS ruling on marriage, citing as precedent a state Supreme Court ruling in Wisconsin where that Court refused to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling in the infamous Dred Scott case.

The Alabama Supreme Court has been a staunch advocate for the decision of their elected officials and voters who overwhelmingly desire to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They refused to allow state clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite a federal judge’s order to do so. In the wake of the US Supreme Court’s illegitimate ruling imposing gay ‘marriage’ on the nation, the Alabama court asked for parties to their marriage litigation to file appropriate briefs advising the court what they should do in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v Hodges.

Liberty Counsel’s brief filed in response to the request has decried the Obergefell ruling as an unlawful and illegal federal usurpation of power that is reserved to the states. In an accompanying press release the group said, “A judicial opinion without constitutional basis is not law and should not be followed by any state or citizen.”

Below is language from their Press Release:

ThinkstockPhotos-78632601Montgomery, AL—In a brief to the Alabama Supreme Court, Liberty Counsel presented legal arguments following the opinion in the marriage case at the U.S. Supreme Court. “When considering the Supreme Court’s Obergefell opinion, state Supreme Courts should contemplate the “decision’s substantial assault on the Rule of Law, Democracy, and Natural Law, and its necessary diminishment of the constitutional right to Free Exercise of Religion,” Liberty Counsel told the Alabama Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts said it best: “[For] those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening….Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

The Obergefell opinion is an assault on Democracy. Justice Antonin Scalia warned, “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine…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.”

ThinkstockPhotos-106536180The decision from five lawyers ignored the natural order of marriage: the union of a man and a woman who complement each other biologically and socially, which union produces children, creates a family, and builds society.

“Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect,” Justice Clarence Thomas put forth in his dissent.

The brief by Liberty Counsel points out that the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to follow the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the Dred Scott case, which said that blacks were not entitled to full protection as citizens. The Liberty Counsel brief also urged the Alabama Supreme Court to protect the religious freedom of its citizens.

“There is existing precedent for a state’s highest court to reject an unlawful mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. Staver continued, “The hope of our Constitutional Republic rests upon state officials and American citizens who will refuse to allow five, black-robed judges to rob us of our free, representative form of government. A judicial opinion without constitutional basis is not law and should not be followed by any state or citizen.”

Liberty Counsel also asked Alabama’s High Court to ensure protection of the constitutional rights of Alabama probate judges and other Christian business owners. “Never before in America has a religious requirement been required to hold office or own a business, and it cannot begin now,” Staver cautioned. “To require Christians to pull out pages of their Bible in order to hold office or own a business is anti-American and it is unconstitutional, despite what any judge may say otherwise.”

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.