Activist Judge Attacks Marriage in South Dakota

marriage_fUnited States District Court Judge Karen E. Schreier, a President Bill Clinton appointee with ties to former Democrat Senator Tim Johnson, has taken it upon herself to attack the institution of marriage, the South Dakota Constitution, and pour contempt on the will of the people of South Dakota who voted in 2006 to affirm in our state constitution what every civilization throughout human history has understood instinctively: that marriage can only be formed by a man and a woman.

Schreier released an opinion today calling South Dakota’s marriage protection amendment to the South Dakota Constitution “unconstitutional.”

There are numerous fallacious and misleading statements in the judicial opinion.

Ted Cruz 2016


For example:

They have lived together for nearly thirty years and have numerous children and grandchildren.

They most assuredly do not have any children or grandchildren together. Unless there have been adoptions somewhere along the way, any and all children that came from either of them came because of a union with a man. It takes a man and a woman to create a child, just as it takes a man and a woman to create a marriage–the ideal and only real stable environment for raising the children created by the union of a man and a woman.

With the exception of being a same-sex couple, they meet all other requirements for a valid marriage in South Dakota.

Yes, they failed to meet a critical requirement for marriage. To claim “With the exception of being a same-sex couple, they meet all other requirements for a valid marriage in South Dakota,” one might also claim of a prospective union that

Woodrow Wilcox


With the exception of being father and daughter, they meet all other requirements for a valid marriage in South Dakota


With the exception of being already married to other people, they meet all other requirements for a valid marriage in South Dakota


With the exception of one party being a horse and the other party being a human, they meet all other requirements for a valid marriage in South Dakota

Counterfeit marriage illustration

Counterfeit marriage illustration

Marital requirements exist for a reason. It takes a man and a woman to form a marriage. Two men or two women sodomizing each other performs no useful function whatsoever for society, and there is no benefit whatsoever in having government serve as a “friendship registry” for two people who want to sodomize each other on a regular basis.

the Rosenbrahns state that they have endured indignity and humiliation

Actually, these two women–who are not “the Rosenbrahns” because they are incapable of forming a family unit by themselves–have brought indignity and humiliation upon themselves. They did so by engaging in aberrant sexual behavior, and making their behavior public. They also brought indignity and humiliation upon themselves by deliberately attempting to counterfeit marriage in an attempt to assault the institution of marriage. No, they brought shame upon themselves with their own actions.

Nancy may be unable to inherit the couple’s mobile home park in the event Jennie dies, and the couple has incurred expenses associated with attempts to replicate the legal protections automatically extended to opposite-sex married couples

There is nothing whatsoever to prevent Jennie from leaving this property to Nancy in her will. That’s what regular people do when they want to pass along property to someone who is not their spouse or direct relative.

What’s more, if they want to enjoy the “legal protections automatically extended to opposite-sex married couples,” then they should find someone of the opposite sex (a rational and valid requirement for marriage) and enjoy those legal protections with a real spouse.

The same is true of the rest of the claims concerning the other homosexuals who are attacking marriage in South Dakota.

marriage illustration

An illustration of a counterfeit marriage, and a real marriage

The simple facts are that these homosexuals are not being deprived of any rights, nor are they being deprived of any due process. They are entitled to the same rights and legal protections as heterosexuals. They must, however, conform to the same behavioral requirements as heterosexuals to enjoy those rights and protections. These homosexual activists have deliberately chosen to behave in a manner different than others, and have therefore chosen to forfeit those rights and protections, just as anyone who behaves outside the law forfeits certain rights and protections.

If these homosexual activists want to enjoy the benefits of marriage and all the legal protections that come with it, they need to find a suitable marriage partner (i.e. someone of legal age, not a close relative, not married to someone else, who consents, and is of the opposite sex) and marry them. These activists have deliberately chosen NOT to do that.

If you want to be recognized as a fireman, you have to complete the proper application process, fulfill the hiring requirements, and complete the proper training to become one. You don’t get to call yourself a fireman just because you want to be one.

If you want to purchase $20 worth of goods in a store, you have to legitimately earn $20 in currency and present that legitimate currency to the store. You don’t get to hand the store a gum wrapper or maple leaf and demand that they accept it as if it were $20.

Contrary to the assertions of homosexual activist and activist judges, there remain a multitude of scientific and practical reasons to oppose acceptance of this behavior. They include:

  • Homosexual behavior is contrary to science (i.e. it is contrary to the obvious function of the involved body parts, and does nothing to perpetuate the organism)
  • Homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural function of the body (see previous)
  • Homosexual behavior is aberrant (less than 3% of the population self-identifies as homosexual)
  • Homosexual behavior carries numerous and extreme health risks
  • The unique and practical function of marriage is not a “friendship registry” or to join two people with mutual affection together (the state has no interest in such); rather, marriage is at its heart about children, their creation, nurturing, and preparation to become healthy members of society
  • Marriage can only be naturally formed between a man and a woman; two men or two women lack the parts to join two bodies together in a functioning and complementary fashion.
  • Marriage between a man and a woman is the only natural means by which to create the next generation of society
  • Marriage between a man and a woman provides the only environment that provides the stable and balanced environment necessary for raising healthy children into adulthood
    • This environment models both behaviors that are unique to both males and females
    • This environment provides the nurturing elements that can best be provided to children only by males and females
    • This environment provides a setting for the modeling of males and females working together in a complimentary fashion
    • Absence of this environment sends the message to the child that one or the other sex is either unnecessary or undesirable, or both
  • Homosexual relationships are wrought with the aforementioned health risks, as well as increased instances of substance abuse, mental and emotional problems, anxiety, depression, suicide and domestic violence–not an ideal environment for children
  • Homosexual relationships are seldom monogamous, even in so-called “committed relationships. An environment where “committed” members of the “family” are coming and going, or outside members are being introduced for transient sexual opportunities, is not a stable environment for raising healthy children
  • Study after study after study has found that a stable, healthy home life is absolutely essential to the welfare of children in many areas: academic, mental and emotional, juvenile delinquency, lawbreaking, poverty, etc.
  • The breakdown of the family costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year. How much more prosperous could America be if we weren’t wasting billions to deal with the problems listed in the last point–problems which could be avoided by strengthening a healthy family environment.

This kind of judicial activism, perversion of the U.S. Constitution (intended to prevent Democrats from undermining morality and the rule of law), the South Dakota Constitution, and pure contempt for the people of South Dakota and our republican form of government (which does NOT empower judges to make law), should not be allowed to stand.

What’s more, while counterfeit marriage is bad enough in and of itself, it also serves as a battering ram against still more freedom, namely the first freedom of the First Amendment: religious liberty. This is something certain people in our government told us last year was in no danger and faced no threat…yet here we are, less than a year later, with marriage itself on the verge of being toppled over by an activist judge in South Dakota.

By the way, South Dakota officials are under no legal, constititonal or moral obligation to act (or not act, depending on the perspective) on illegal and unconstititonal edicts such as this. They are no more compelled to act on illegal orders (especially by people not empowered by our constitutional form of government to craft law) than a soldier is compelled to obey unlawful or immoral orders.

Whether South Dakota officials have the guts to act (or not act) on this truth, remains to be seen.

It’s about time some of our leaders got in touch with the spirit of the American Revolution and stopped paying homage to “pretended legislation.” In fact, such “pretended legislation” deserves nothing but the complete contempt of good people.

The good people of South Dakota, as well as the numerous pro-family groups of our state, should call on our federal representatives (Senator John Thune, Senator Mike Rounds, and Rep. Kristi Noem) to immediately begin impeachment actions to remove this judicial activist from the bench. South Dakota’s ovewhelmingly-Republican government should also publicly condemn this judicial activism and join in the call for Schreier’s impeachment and removal from office.

Additionally, our federal representatives should introduce legislation to prevent activist judges from ever interfering with marriage again, as congress is empowered to do by Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Marriage is too important to allow narcissistic activists to undermine it.  The time for good people to stand against the tyranny of homosexual activism is NOW.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Print Friendly


  • JJ

    I don’t have the time to go through the multitude of inaccuracies in this column (basically every line) so let’s start at the top, shall we? “…every civilization throughout human history..” Seriously? Dude - do your research. And the screw and bolt pictures? What is this - high school in 1980? This column needs the FoxNewsFacts hashtag

    • Bob Ellis

      The only inaccuracies in this column are the quotes from Judicial Activist Schreier’s opinion; her opinion (which is really all it is, since it is a distortion of the facts) is full of inaccuracies.

      Yes, every civilization throughout human history. Look it up…if you dare. Be careful, though. The truth will blow your little fantasy, and that might not be pleasant for you.

      I noticed that you didn’t even try to make up some garbage or twist facts like a lot of liberals do. Sad, in a way, but at least you didn’t waste any more of anyone’s time.

      And yes, look at the bolts again. Think about it. One is a useless union (not even a union at all, really), while the other is a union that accomplishes something useful. A perfect illustration in contrast between genuine marriage and counterfeit marriage. Sometimes a simple picture is the only thing that has a hope of making an impact on those who are hostile to the truth (and even then…),

      You’re free to disagree with the truth, but at least do yourself and your country a favor by examining the facts with an open mind. It will likely be difficult for you to come to terms with, but isn’t aligning your opinion with reality worth it?

      • BobN

        I luv your illustrations! But I’m confused. Clearly, you’re a nut. Who’s the bolt?

        • Bob Ellis

          Actually, anyone who thinks two people sodomizing one another constitutes or should be recognized as marriage is a nut. Science alone makes it pretty obvious that homosexual behavior is contradictory to the obvious design and function of our sex organs (as well as some other body parts), and that, unlike a marital union, homosexual behavior serves no useful function for society. Anyone who cannot accept these rather obvious realities is, by definition, a nut.

          • The Rev’d Father Raymond Burgoon-Clark

            Homosexuality exists in most animals. Homophobia only exists in one. No one is born hating anything or anybody. It’s a LEARNED behaviour and a CHOICE, like religion, and UNLIKE homosexuality.

            • Bob Ellis

              Yes, animals, like people, live in a fallen world dominated by sin and its consequences. Like people, animals also die, get sick, develop cancer, and behave contrary to the way they were designed to behave.

              But people, unlike animals, have a high level of self awareness, a conscience, and a free will to choose to behave contrary to their impulses. Please, don’t demean human beings by comparing them to animals in order to excuse their immoral choices.

              • The Rev’d Father Raymond Burgoon-Clark

                Your theology is questionable. Animals are “unfallen.” They act according to their nature. They are incapable of sin. That’s why they will be in heaven to greet us.

              • Bob Ellis

                My theology is sound. I did not say animals were fallen. Please read what I said again. I said “Yes, animals, like people, live in a fallen world dominated by sin and its consequences. Like people, animals also die, get sick, develop cancer, and behave contrary to the way they were designed to behave.” You have a hard time either understanding or accepting the truth.

                I also pointed out that, unlike animals, human beings have a high degree of self-awareness, a conscience, and a will with which to rise above their more base impulses. You do a great disservice to homosexuals to imply that they are no better than dumb animals, unable to control the aberrant notions that cross their mind. God created people to behave more nobly than that.

    • The Rev’d Father Raymond Burgoon-Clark

      Parts is parts. They fit together just fine for my late husband of 33 years and myself.

      • Bob Ellis

        A penis was made for a vagina, and a vagina for a penis. Two vaginas accomplish nothing of any use or benefit, and neither do two penises or a penis and an anus. If you want to misuse your sex organs, no one is stopping you, but the state is under no rational obligation whatsoever to officially recognize your perversion.

    • The Rev’d Father Raymond Burgoon-Clark

      Right on!

  • disgusted american

    do yourself a favor and LEARN CIVICS……Freedom is for everyone..not just white, Christian heteros…..and maybe if you were so concerned - you straight people would stop having so many GABIES!

    • Bob Ellis

      Yes, freedom is indeed for everyone (something Democrats never seem to have understood, and still don’t). Homosexuals have the same right to marry as anyone else, subject to the same logical, common-sense requirements as everyone else: that the marriage partner be consenting, of legal age, not a close relative, not married to someone else, and be of the opposite sex.

      The problem is, many homosexual activists don’t want the same freedom that everyone else has. They want the special “right” to call something that isn’t marriage by the title of “marriage.”

      That is unacceptable in a rational, civilized society.

      • anti-NDhaters

        When you get to “opposite sex”, you put something in there that doesn’t need to be in there and that discriminates against people who love people of the SAME sex.
        See, all people don’t love or hate the same as you Bob. Get the f over it.

        • Bob Ellis

          It doesn’t matter who someone loves. What matters is whether two people have the equipment necessary to form a marriage. Two men or two women don’t, and the state has no compelling interest in functioning as a “friendship registry” or even a “love registry.”

      • The Rev’d Father Raymond Burgoon-Clark

        “Biblical” marriage was one man and as many women as he could buy, capture, or rape.

        King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

        • Bob Ellis

          As stated by God in both the Old and New Testaments, marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It may have escaped you, but Solomon (and his people) paid extremely dearly for his refusal to honor God’s design for marriage.

    • The Rev’d Father Raymond Burgoon-Clark

      The children that GLBTQAI adopt are almost invariably those abandoned and abused by “morally superior” heterosexual couples.

      • Bob Ellis

        The children that homosexuals sometimes adopt (and then warp with their behavior) are the same kind of children adopted by heterosexual couples. The behavior of bad parents who lose or give up their children is not at issue. The aberrant and unhealthy sexual behavior of homosexuals is. It should be criminal to deliberately rob a child of a mother or a father, as well as teach them that one or the other sex is either unwanted or unnecessary, or both. But since when has the good of anyone else been a priority for narcissistic homosexual activists?

  • KaneHau

    Oh… Poor Bob “can’t-stop-thinking-about-sodomy” Ellis. Your sadzzzzz makes us so very happy!

    • Bob Ellis

      I’d love to stop thinking about sodomy, as would most decent people. Unfortunately, homosexual activists and “useful idiots” like Judicial Activist Schreier make that very difficult by shoving perverted sexual behaviors into our faces on a regular basis. You will all be “sadzzzzz” when you face the physical and eternal consequences of your embrace of evil, if you don’t repent before it’s too late.

      • The Rev’d Father Raymond Burgoon-Clark

        God hasn’t appointed you to judge ANYBODY.

        “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

        • Bob Ellis

          Wrong again, apostate.

          Judge with right judgement (John 7:24)

          Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? (1 Corinthians 6:2)

          All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16)

          And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” (Acts 16:15)

          If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. (Ezekiel 3:18)

          Please, don’t embarrass yourself further before learning more about what God has told us. Get into God’s word, learn about his will, repent, then come back and join me in the defense of what God has said is right.

  • KaneHau

    Bob, your mythical sky fairy has no power over me. Take your bigoted mindset elsewhere. You are an embarrassment to humanity.

    • The Rev’d Father Raymond Burgoon-Clark


    • Bob Ellis

      It doesn’t matter whether you believe the Creator has any power over you or not, just as it doesn’t matter whether you realize the cop has you on radar exceeding the speed limit, or whether you even believe he has authority over you. In the end, justice is going to catch up with you. To believe otherwise is not only bigoted, but downright self-destructive.

  • The Rev’d Father Raymond Burgoon-Clark

    In the New Testament, Jesus healed the centurion’s “Pais,” (bedmate, lover) and went on His way after giving them His blessing and commending their faith.

    All of which has NOTHING to do with marriage equality, civil marriage, etc. It has EVERYTHING to do with the LAW and the 1st and 14th Amendments.

    MY church administers the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony to same-sex couples. What about OUR religious liberty?

    What’s next? Forbidding churches to administer Holy Communion with wine to underage persons?

    • Bob Ellis

      You are an apostate liar, “Rev” Burgoon-Clark. There is nothing other than the desperate fantasies of homosexual activists to support the contention that the centurion’s servant whom Jesus healed was a homosexual.

      God will judge you for making a mockery of the holy institution of marriage. For your sake, I hope you repent before it’s eternally too late.

  • Bob Ellis

    Some very interesting things to consider concerning this issue:

  • Bill

    These are not the thoughts or ideas of a man to be taken at all seriously.

    Kind of embarrassed for you, dude.

    Grown men don’t behave like this.

    • Bob Ellis

      Indeed. Judicial Activist Schreier’s statements, as well as those of homosexual activists promoting this insanity, are not the ideas of a man or woman who should be taken seriously.

      Such complete denial of science, morality, history and simple reality should be embarrassing.

  • AC700

    Bob, you are right - what is marriage? Brother & sister ? 2 guys and their 18 yr old cousin? First define it in a universal sense & then try & make the case

  • Opus35

    Marriage equality is two consenting adults, who are law abiding citizens, not related. 😎

    • Bob Ellis

      Science, thousands of years of history, every civilization that has ever existed, and common sense strongly disagree with you. When you have two men or two women, you’re missing one or the other important element to form a union.

      It takes a man and a woman to form a marriage.

      • Opus35

        I respect fully disagree. Marriage is about love. Also I would point out that thousands of years throughout history, although not necessarily recorded have been many gays and lesbians. An as far as science goes no definitive answer to the question born or choice , but psychiatrist or psychologist no longer feel that this is a mental illness. 😎

        • Bob Ellis

          You can disagree all you like, but the facts don’t change.

          Marriage is about much more than love. I’ve loved a lot of women I didn’t marry. I’ve also loved a male friend close enough that I would have given my life for him when we were both in the military overseas (and we didn’t even have sex :-).

          Marriage is not a “friendship registry”, and it isn’t even a “love registry.” It is a functional and vitally important union for the creation and healthy development of the next generation of any civilization. Homosexuals are, by choice and design, incapable of contributing any of this.

          Science is also clear. The design and complimentary function of the male and female sex organs make it obvious that they were designed to be used in concert together to accomplish something that two penises, two vaginas, or a penis and an anus can never do (see the previous paragraph for more on this). Further, two penises, two vaginas, or a penis and an anus were obviously never designed to be used in concert with one another, and serve no scientific, biological, societal or practical purpose together.

          You can misuse your body all you like, but that doesn’t change the simple moral and scientific fact that homosexual behavior serves no legitimate function, and accordingly, no facet of homosexual behavior is deserving of society’s recognition or blessing.

          • Opus35

            Ok Bob, I understand your position, and I am sure you understand I will not be changing mine. So have a good night. Peace. 😎

            • Bob Ellis

              Yes, sadly I understand that it will take a lot to get through the fog of confusion that surrounds the dysfunction of homosexual behavior, as well as the lies our society now foists to keep homosexuals enslaved to this behavior.

              Nevertheless, I do hope and do pray that as soon as possible, you will realize the truth and, for your own sake and the sake of those around you, make the change for the better.

        • Thisoldspouse

          Civil marriage is NOT about love, so you’ve lost that case completely on that argument. No where on a marriage license or application does the requirement for love appear, for the parties to assent to any fact that they love each other, or for evidence to be introduced indicating this condition. And since this is a wholly legal document, and since the verbiage of law is the very essence of the issue, love is completely irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Indeed, the law is emphatic on the well-established axiom that human affection cannot be deemed consideration in a contract.