States Must Stop Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Judicial Despotism

Listen to the Christian Patriot Politicast of this column

Install Microsoft Silverlight

marriageJust in time for Thanksgiving, two more lawless federal judges, young ones who are Obama appointees, struck down state marriage protection laws in Mississippi and Arkansas.  These are the latest examples of outrageous rulings by federal judges who have no jurisdiction in this area.  The Constitution outlines the areas of very limited authority of the federal government and judiciary, and marriage is not an area in which they possess the rightful power to rule over the states.  Therefore, this is a states’ rights issue.  Twisting the 14th Amendment to apply to degenerate sexual behavior and the perversion of the meaning of marriage is a travesty that must not be allowed to stand.

As we have watched these rogue federal judges impose a grotesque parody of “marriage” on the states, I have known it is up to the states to refuse to comply with these illegal rulings.  Instead, state leaders, to a man, acquiesce to the futile appeals process.  Ultimately, this issue will be decided by the Supreme Court, where again, it has no authority.  And, what happens when the clearly-compromised Chief Justice John Roberts falls in line with his blackmailers, or whoever it was who pressed him to declare the plainly unconstitutional “Obamacare” law to be “constitutional”?  What happens when the Supreme Court rules in favor of tyrannical insanity, to declare, against all truth and reason, that homosexuals have the “right” to “marry,” and the states, in self-hobbling deference to the ruling, have no recourse to stop it?

If we allow ourselves to be bound under the illegitimate power of these lawless federal courts, we will lose our natural, God-given freedoms.  One of the common talking points of the Marxist homosexual Left is to claim that same-sex “marriage” affects no one.  This is a lie straight from the pit of Hell.  It affects everyone.  If this abominable perversion of marriage is forced on this nation, it will become illegal to refuse in any way to accommodate it.  It’s already happening with Christian business owners being legally assaulted by homosexualists.  This is one major way in which the Godless Marxists behind this movement are working to accomplish the outlawing of Christianity and freedom of speech, expression and association of the American people.

Watching one rogue federal judge after another (with only a tiny few exceptions) force same-sex “marriage” on the states, I have repeatedly thought that the states must rise up and say, “NO!”  Short of this, we will not be able to stop this lunacy.  Since I live in Mississippi, this latest ruling truly hit home, and when I saw that the Obama judicial invasion had infected Mississippi, and his man on the bench in Jackson illegally shot down our marriage protection amendment, I shouted that our state must refuse to comply.  It’s the only way.  Just as I thought this, I saw Bryan Fischer’s latest column in which he says the same thing.  In, “Time for a Governor to Stand Up to Judicial Tyranny,” Mr. Fischer writes:

There is one and only one short range solution to a runaway judiciary on the issue of sodomy-based marriage: a governor with the testosterone to stand up and just say no.

Governors take an oath of office to uphold the federal constitution and the constitution of their own state. Any governor in any state with a marriage amendment as a part of his constitution has the right, nay, the duty, to refuse to comply with any judicial order to recognize same-sex marriage.

The Constitution is utterly silent on the topic of homosexuality and marriage, which means, according to the Constitution the Founders gave us, this is an issue reserved exclusively to the states.

Any ruling from any federal court that imposes domestic policy on a state is by its very nature unconstitutional, and no governor has any obligation to obey it. In fact, quite the opposite. He must refuse to comply with it, for to comply would mean he must violate his own sacred oath of office.

This is where we stand.  We will not be able to stop this by capitulating to the federal courts that have no rightful authority in this area as it stands.  Appealing these rulings will not succeed.  We must refuse to comply, period.  I realize this is a very tall order, and that there are fewer and fewer people every day who have the courage to boldly proclaim the fact that homosexuality is an immoral, unhealthy, unnatural behavior, and that there can never be such a thing as a marriage union between two people of the same sex, irrespective of how many evil laws are illegally passed by crooked judges.  No longer will the powers-that-be listen to truth and sound reason, nor will they regard the whole of human history which consistently declares the only thing that marriage could ever be:  the union of a man and a woman.

The people and the leaders of the states must be the ones who refuse to acknowledge these lawless federal court rulings.  There is no other way to stop them.  As Bryan Fischer writes:

The truth is the federal judiciary is impotent apart from the good will of the American people. Once the American people realize that the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government, not the superior branch of government, they can get back to governing themselves rather than deferring to black-robed oligarchs to make all the important decisions for them.

For a governor to stand up and refuse to cower to a federal court would not be civil disobedience at all. It would be constitutional obedience – obedience to the Constitution and its provisions in the ninth and 10th amendments, obedience to his own state constitution, and obedience to the oath he took before Almighty God.

Governors do not take an oath of allegiance to the Supreme Court. They take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. It’s time they started acting like it.

I cannot overstate the terrible importance of this issue.  The radical homosexual movement is on steroids under this uncharged criminal in the White House, who is deeply on the side of this dark campaign.  There are numerous battle fronts these pushers of degeneracy are waging.  From our public schools to the business and corporate world to the media and entertainment industries, there is no area uninfected by the schemes of the Marxist homosexualists.  The destruction of marriage and the silencing of any opposition, Christian or otherwise, to the insaniac “transgender” agenda, or any other aspect of this war of perversity, will be accomplished if the American people and the leaders of the states do not loudly and strongly resist this evil offensive.

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:

Gina Miller, a native of Texas and current resident of the Mississippi Gulf Coast, is a radio/television voice professional.
Gina Miller
View all articles by Gina Miller
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly
  • Chuck Anziulewicz

    It is not the courts’ job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That’s what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of “equality,” and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not “activism” on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.

    • Bob Ellis

      You are right that it is the job of the courts to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether that falls in line with the flighty will of the majority.

      However, part of upholding the Constitution involves not pretending it says things it does not, and not pretending it authorizes government action where it does not.

      The U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage. Why? Because at the time it was written, the founders understood that marriage is an institution which transcends government. They also universally understood that marriage could only be formed between a man and a woman, and never fathomed acceptance of the insanity that two men or two women might attempt to counterfeit marriage.

      The U.S. Constitution also doesn’t deal with marriage because, as James Madison said in Federalist No. 45:

      The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

      In other words, the U.S. Constitution provides no authority for the federal government to meddle in marriage or to attempt to authorize the counterfeiting of it. The states retain the power to do that (see the Tenth Amendment), and they almost universally (universally, until recent illegitimate court decisions emboldened the enemies of marriage) have, when they addressed this issue, set down in writing what was universally understood throughout human history: that marriage can only be formed by a man and a woman.

      Additionally, homosexuals are not excluded from the institution of marriage. They have the same right as anyone else to marry, subject to the same requirements as everyone else: that their marriage partner be consenting, of legal age, not a close relative, not already marriage, and be of the opposite sex. Claims that homosexuals are being excluded from marriage or are being denied some right is a complete lie.

      • WXRGina

        Well-said and true, Bob.

      • Chuck Anziulewicz

        “The founders understood that marriage is an institution which transcends government. They also universally understood that marriage could only be formed between a man and a woman.”

        I doubt if the notion of two compatible Gay men deciding to make a solemn, legal commitment to one another would have even occurred to the Founders. In fact I doubt if the Founders could have foreseen much of ANYTHING about the 21st Century world. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons they, in their wisdom, created an Amendment process, to keep the Constitution relevant in a changing world.

        • Bob Ellis

          Probably not-because for one thing, the founders recognized that people who commit grossly immoral acts are not good candidates for stable commitments, and even today, monogamy is extremely rare in the homosexual community. Besides, unlike heterosexual unions which produce the next generation of society and provide the most stable and balanced environment possible for the development of that generation, a homosexual union produces absolutely nothing of value whatsoever for society.

          It’s clear that you sell the founders short in many ways-not uncommon for liberals, who always fancy themselves and their fanciful notions the smartest in the room. Yet they were smart enough to win their independence from the most powerful empire on earth, and establish the greatest nation in all of human history-as well as recognize the propensity of evil men to want to tyrannize their fellow man and create a system to short-circuit that tyranny (if only “we the people” would continue to utilize it).

    • DCM7

      Like most people taking your position, you are not grasping what “equal treatment” really means. There are a couple of things about “equal treatment” that don’t get discussed too much.

      The first thing is that there is no guarantee that genuinely equal treatment will satisfy everyone. For example, a college may have academic standards for admission that are equally applied to everyone. This will not satisfy the person who doesn’t meet those standards but wants special treatment based on their race. That person is not prepared for the responsibilities that come with equal treatment.

      The second thing is that no one can change the criteria for “equal treatment” in order to make it apply to them, in a way that does not apply to those they say they want to be treated equally to. If they can change the criteria in this way, the treatment ceases to be equal.

      If a black man wants to be able to use the same restroom as white men, he is asking for equal treatment.

      If a black man wants to be able to use “the restroom of his choice,” meaning the women’s room, he is asking for something other than equal treatment.

      If a black man wants to be able to marry a white woman, he is seeking to be treated equally to a white man.

      If a man says he wants the same “right to marriage” as other men, but the “person of his choice” is a child, a close relative, or another man, then he is asking for something other than equal treatment, because the other men he says he wants “equality” with neither have nor want such a right.

      • Bob Ellis

        Good points, all, DCM7.

      • Chuck Anziulewicz

        So what makes you think law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples are summarily unqualified to marry? It can’t have anything to do with procreation, since couples to not need to marry to have children, and the ability or even desire to have kids are not prerequisites for obtaining a marriage license. These are couples who are in love, who have made a commitment to one another’s happiness and well-being. These are couples who in most cases already share a life together, so allowing them to marry isn’t really going to change anything as far as their local community goes.

        • Bob Ellis

          I’m sure DCM7 will have a good response, but I have a few thoughts as well.

          Their refusal to find a suitable marriage partner renders homosexual couples unqualified to marry, just as refusal to attend flight training renders me unqualified to fly an airplane.

          It is true that, due to the employment of artificial means, many couples do not participate in the creation and development of the next generation of society. However, even with the universal availability of contraceptives, the overwhelming majority of married couples STILL reproduce-and an overwhelming body of statistics over many years makes it clear beyond any rational doubt that the best environment for raising children is in the committed home of both of their biological parents. Even those who don’t reproduce serve to model the standard and the norm, while homosexual couples perform no valuable service to society, and at the same time by their example illustrate a perversion of the norm.

          As I pointed out before, homosexuals can still marry. No one is attempting to stop them in any way, shape, form or fashion. They are simply subject to the same standards as everyone else: that their marriage partner be consenting, of legal age, not married to someone else, not a close relative, and of the opposite sex.

          It doesn’t get more equal than that.

          • Chuck Anziulewicz

            Ah, yes. The old joke about how Gay people have every right to marry, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Always good for a wink and a chuckle at the Sean Hannity Comedy Club.

            • Bob Ellis

              It isn’t a joke; it’s reality. It’s just a reality that some homosexuals don’t like. Mature people adjust to reality rather than trying to kick against it.

            • DCM7

              And pedophiles have the right to marry, as long as they marry an adult. And those who desire polygamy have the right to marry, as long as they only marry one person.
              Nope, not a joke.

          • DCM7

            “homosexuals can still marry. No one is attempting to stop them in any way, shape, form or fashion.”
            Of course, they need to address their same-sex attraction issue first — as indeed many have done, to their great benefit.

        • DCM7

          Overall, you sound as if you haven’t really read my post and/or are actually replying to a different one somewhere.

          At any rate, the value of the male/female dynamic goes well beyond procreation, as significant as that is. There’s much more involved than just being “in love,” “making a commitment to one another’s happiness and well-being,” or “sharing a life together” (all of which, when being used in reference to relationships based on unhealthy same-sex attractions, are downright ridiculous in their rose-colored glossing-over of reality).

          Find someone who has made the effort, successfully or not, to make a (real) marriage work. Ask that person if it’s anything like living with someone of their same gender — someone who basically works the same way, thinks the same way, and has the same needs and wants. That person will laugh at you, probably very loudly.

          There’s a reason there are books with titles like “Women Are From Venus, Men Are From Mars” and “His Needs / Her Needs.” There’s a reason so many people fail at (real) marriage. It’s meant for people who are mature and prepared to change, learn and grow.

          In sharp contrast, living with a roommate-with-benefits of the same sex requires very little of a person, especially in terms of character growth. Very often, even physical faithfulness isn’t asked for.

          There’s a reason same-sex relationships get referred to as “counterfeit marriage.” There can be no counterfeit without there first being a uniquely valuable real thing, and ignorance (willful or not) of that value doesn’t change anything.

          • franklinb23

            DCM, Charles Manson recently wed his much younger girlfriend. What benefit is this union to society?

            In fact, men as bad or even worse than Manson can marry. They can be pedophiles, rapists or murderers.

            If one of the *primary* purposes of civil marriage is to unite children to their biological parents, doesn’t society have an interest in NOT allowing these folks to marry? Do you think society should encourage child murderers to marry and have their own children?

            What you folks seem to be saying is that *any* union of two persons with opposite sets of “plumbing” is valid and is of benefit to society while *no* legal union of two men or two women has any benefit to anyone whatsoever.

            Do you really believe that?

    • thisoldspouse

      Most of the well-known, older homosexual activists, such as Rev. Gene Robinson, have married well before this campaign to redefine marriage was seriously considered.

      Tell me again where “gays” have been denied marriage, seeing that so many have married?

      • franklinb23

        I believe that was purely a religious ceremony that afforded them no rights of marriage in the eyes of the law.

        If that’s the most important thing, why don’t heterosexuals just avoid legal marriage and have someone say a blessing over them instead?

        • thisoldspouse

          No, I’m talking real, universally church-approved, state/world-recognized marriage. Gene Robinson and many, many other prominent American activist homosexuals have participated fully, even before Goodrich was issued in 2003. Yes, marriages that even produced biological children to the couple.

          The contention that homosexuals have not been allowed to marry is, therefore, provably false. There are hundreds of exhibits to prove it.