The Framers created a system where the people - through this representative system of government - create laws. We, as a civil society, live within the confines of those laws. You're comparing the laws of today with the edicts of a monarch, to what end, apparently only you know. What relevance there is to a child custody case, is a mystery to all but you.
So, England didn't have a Parliament? In any case, you still didn't answer the question. Is it OK to break the laws of a monarchy (or other non-republican form of government) but not the laws of a Republic? What makes the laws of a Republic more valid than the laws in other forms of government? You seem to assert the position that the law is the law, and breaking the law is never an option.
So let's go with that. Is it ever OK to break the law? If yes, then under what circumstances? If No, then why were the Framers OK in breaking the laws that they were subject to?
Does this also mean that you agree that Baker v. Nelson is the law (and thus Vaughn Walker is bound to follow it.) And that Prop 8 in California is a law that must be respected and followed?