States Should Ignore SCOTUS Pass on Counterfeit Marriage

marriage_fBy now you have probably heard that on Monday, the gutless John Roberts U.S. Supreme Court–the same one that found the patently unconstitutional ObamaCare scheme “constitutional” by declaring it to be a “tax” even though the law itself clearly said it was not, and by declaring an absolute authority for the federal government to do anything it wants so long as that action can be said to involve a “tax…the same one that already attempted to delete legally and duly-passed marriage law at the federal level–took a pass on dealing with counterfeit marriage cases in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

As Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) said today, “The Supreme Court’s decision to not review the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in Kitchen v. Herbert is disappointing. Nothing in the Constitution forbids a state from retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”

He’s absolutely right.

Ted Cruz 2016


We couldn’t redefine marriage even if we wanted to, any more than we could redefine a dog (call it a cat, but it’s still going to bark), or the sun (call it an orange, but it’s still going to provide light and heat for this solar system), or any transcendent relationship or institution.  The grownups in our government (if any remain) should have taken this important opportunity to affirm that truth, or at a minimum, confirm that if governments are going to ignore reality, that ignorance should be brought about constitutionally according to our republican form of government.

Contrary to what Leftists and their “useful idiots” are stating, counterfeit marriage is not legal in these states.

What does it mean to state that something is “legal”?

The dictionary defines “legal” as

:  of or relating to law
a :  deriving authority from or founded on law

There are no laws whatsoever which compel governments in those states to recognize counterfeit marriage.  Neither the state legislatures nor the people themselves (through ballot initiatives) have passed constitutionally-compliant laws requiring governments to recognize counterfeit marriages in those states. Therefore, governments are under no obligation whatsoever to recognize counterfeit marriages. We do not have a form of government where a group of people get to dictate their will to the people; that is an oligarchy.

On the contrary, there are laws in those states which specifically spell out what every civilization around the world for thousands of years has understood instinctively: that marriage can only be formed by a man and a woman.

What is legal in those states?  Only genuine marriages formed by a man and a woman. To attempt to coerce or force people to accept something which violates duly-passed law is itself by definition illegal, and as such carries with it an obligation to be resisted.

Do we in the United States have an oligarchical form of government?

Do we in the United States have a dictatorship?

We have neither of these forms of government. What type of government do we have in the United States?

The U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution says:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

What is a republican form of government? It is the type of government found in a republic.  What is a republic?

According to the dictionary, a republic is:

a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen


a (1) :  a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) :  a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

b (1) :  a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) :  a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

A republican form of government establishes that the legislative body crafts laws, which are then signed into law and enforced by the executive branch, and then adjudicated on by the judicial branch.

What’s more, in a constitutional republic like we have in the United States, our republican form of government must operate according to the dictates, parameters and limitations of its constitution, which is the highest law of a constitutional republic.

No law mandating government recognition of counterfeit marriage has followed this process in the affected states, therefore there is no legal requirement for governments in those states to recognize counterfeit marriage as if it was real marriage.

If any governor or other official recognizes a counterfeit marriage in contradiction with the duly-passed constitutional law concerning marriage in that state,  they are not only gutless wonders who are complicit in tyranny and lawlessness, they have themselves become lawbreakers, and should be removed from office as soon as possible by the citizens of that jurisdiction by whatever legal means are available.

The time for going along with tyranny and lawlessness in America is long, long over. The founders of our great nation realized when a point was reached that the people had to resist and fight back against illegal and immoral acts being perpetrated by their leaders.

This realization was reached again a few years ago when black Americans and other freedom-loving Americans realized that tyrannical Democrats who were trampling the rule of law and and morality had to be resisted, engaging in civil disobedience against unjust “pretended legislation.”

That time is now upon the present generation of Americans.

And actually, officials and citizens ignoring this judicial tyranny would not be “civilly disobeying” the law at all; they would be “disobeying” the  unlawful dictates of un-American tyrants who hold marriage, family, constitution and the people in contempt.

Good governors, attorneys general, other government officials and citizens should not only ignore such lawless and illegal dictates, they should immediately begin impeachment proceedings to remove lawless judges who are attempting to trample the will of the people, our republican form of government, and our constitutions.

And for those states like South Dakota that have marriage cases pending before federal courts, federal officials from our state (i.e. our senators and congressmen), state officials and conservatives should already be at work loudly and publicly mobilizing a campaign to make it clear to activist judges that if they attempt to subvert the state constitution and the will of the people, we will impeach them and remove them from office for their attack on law and order, and their usurpation of powers that do not belong to them (a “high crime” or “misdemeanor” if I ever saw one).

Lawlessness has accelerated exponentially in the past six years. The Second Amendment, under assault for years, has been joined by the Fourth Amendment in undergoing unprecedented attacks by our own government on privacy and private property rights. Our nations’s borders and immigration laws might as well not exist (though they definitely do).  And the Left’s war on marriage and family has escalated to the stage where even the constitutions of the states are no longer safe from black-robed tyrants.

We the people cannot continue to allow this state of lawlessness to exist.  We cannot continue allowing lawless behavior from our legislators (who pass some laws in direct defiance of our nation’s highest law–the U.S. Constitution), executives (who sometimes “create” their own laws where none exist and ignore laws that do exist), and judges (who legislate from the bench, creating laws where none exist in order to mandate their own opinions over law). John Adams rightly pointed out that one of the key things that made the American form of government unique and successful is that we were created to be a nation of laws, not of powerful men’s opinions.

And if “we the people” do not rise up and use every means at our disposal to restore law and morality to our land, we will be as complicit in the evil of these lawless judges and officials as those officials themselves.

Good people have a duty to ignore unlawful government dictates, just as surely as the American soldier has a duty to ignore unlawful orders.  Citizens have an obligation to rise up and overturn tyranny like this, just as surely as the Dred Scott decision that made property of men should have been contemptibly ignored.

Our ancestors some 238 years ago rebelled against a tyrannical and lawless government over offenses far less than we the American people are being subjected to by our own government. When will we say “No more!” to this lawlessness?  When will we stop shaming ourselves and our forefathers, and treating their legacy of courage with contempt?

As Martin Luther King Jr. said

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.

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
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
  • Publius Huldah

    Great Paper, Bob!

    But respecting Sen. Mike Lee’s statement: The proper question is not whether the federal Constitution forbids States from defining “marriage”.

    The proper question is this: Does our Constitution delegate to the federal government power to define “marriage”?

    It is the federal government which is supposed to look to the Constitution for the list of
    enumerated powers WE THE PEOPLE delegated to it.

    The States don’t go to the Constitution to look for permission because they retain all powers they didn’t exclusively delegate to the federal government, or prohibit to themselves in Art. I, § 10.

    • Bob Ellis

      Good point.

    • thisoldspouse

      That boat has long sailed, PH, for the extreme worse. No one believes the Constitution anymore (and by that, I mean a critical mass of parasitic drones.) It will take a bloody reset to recover its original meaning. And I mean that quite literally.

      • Publius Huldah

        But even so, We are to do what we have been called to do even if it seems to us to be futile. We throw a tiny pebble into the lake - we do NOT know what is affected by the ripples…… So we obey and leave the results in God’s Hands.

      • franklinb23

        “It will take a bloody reset to recover its original meaning. ”

        You mean when women couldn’t vote, blacks were the property of whites and “witches” had more than their warts burned off in the town square, right? Those were the halcyon days of America, weren’t they?

        • WXRGina

          Seriously, Franklin? I’m sorry if you can’t see the unimaginably dark days that lie ahead for this nation. And, no, they will not resemble anything in our past, but will be much worse.

          • franklinb23

            What do you think our nation is headed towards, honestly? Do you really believe Christians are going to be sent to the gulags? Those would be dark days, but to somehow see some direct line between anything going on today and THAT is just plain nuts.

            Religious freedom has actually increased for some, believe it or not. The Jehovah’s Witnesses preached against Catholicism so strenuously in the early 1900s that some states actually made laws against their preaching. Do you see anything remotely like that occurring given Westboro’s victory at the Supreme Court? (I’d argue that Westboro’s statements and methods are far more radical than anything the JW’s could have cooked up).

            I’ve said this before, but you’re pining away for an era that never existed. America was never some Christian nirvana. Prostitution used to be, for all intents and purposes, legal, and some brothels received police protection in exchange for some type of compensation. Read about the battles of the Civil War. Do you see any likelihood of a group of Ohioans picking up semi-automatics and blowing off the heads of New Yorkers because of high taxes or really any issue at all? If you were African-American, perhaps you’d have more of a sense of the horror that American slavery was and how commonplace mistreatment and abuse of blacks was.

            Yes, our country has its ills, but I think you’re being more than paranoid. We’re still trying to figure out how to balance freedom of conscience with one’s responsibility to uphold the law. You think this is cut and dried, but it’s not. Do you think we should let Muslim women wear the hijab on their driver’s license to protect their religious freedom? I’m doubting it. These are complicated issues. It doesn’t mean we’re on the precipice of a fascist police state. Relax a bit.

            • Bob Ellis

              Leftists would love for average Americans to think that because America has never been perfect, that it has never been better morally than it is now.

              This is complete and utter hogwash, and history proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt (for anyone interested in learning the facts, that is).

              Leftists also love to foist the lie that if someone wants a return to the days when our country had an overall much higher moral fiber (i.e. where throwing spitwads in school was the problem…instead of mass school shootings), then we also want a return to the tyrannies that Democrats used to force on many people (that Democrats desperately hope no one today realizes they were responsible for, back then).

              While some might really be that stupid, it’s highly likely that most know better and only use the fallacious argument as a bludgeon to scare people away from acknowledging our drift into complete moral bankruptcy.

        • thisoldspouse

          Man, if you could assemble just a couple more straw men, you’d have a battle ship crew.