Supreme Court's Gay Marriage Ruling Must Be Rejected by States, 64 Legal Experts Say

A group of 64 legal experts and scholars have signed a statement calling on Americans to oppose the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

The Washington, DC-based American Principles Project posted the legal experts' statement Thursday on their website in which they denounced the 5-4 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

"The Court's majority opinion eschewed reliance on the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, as well as the Court's own interpretative doctrines and precedents, and supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife," declared the statement.

"The opinion for the Court substituted for traditional — and sound — methods of constitutional interpretation a new and ill-defined jurisprudence of identity — one that abused the moral concept of human dignity. The four dissenting justices are right to reject the majority opinion in unsparing terms."

Quoting James Madison and Abraham Lincoln regarding their views on the Supreme Court, the legal experts argued that "all federal and state officeholders" should "refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case."

"To recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions," continued the statement.

"[All federal and state officeholders should] open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evident in Obergefell."
Signatories included Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and founder of the American Principles Project; Ralph A. Rossum, Salvatori Professor of American Constitutionalism at Claremont McKenna College; John Agresto, former president of St. John's College, Santa Fe, and the American University of Iraq; and Robert F. Sasseen, president and professor of Politics Emeritus at the University of Dallas.

On June 26, the highest court in the land ruled 5-4 that state level bans on gay marriage violated were unconstitutional, affirming several lower court decisions.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, arguing that state-level bans violated the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the "dignity" of same-sex couples."

"The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest," wrote Kennedy.

"With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter."

The signatories of the American Principles Project statement are not the only legal experts who have expressed concern about the merits of the decision.

Jonathan Turley, Shapiro chair of public interest law at The George Washington University, explained in a July column for The Washington Post that while he supported the decision he took issue with Kennedy's reasoning.

"Dignity is a rather elusive and malleable concept compared with more concrete qualities such as race and sex. Which relationships are sufficiently dignified to warrant protection?," wrote Turley.

"Could employees challenge workplace dress codes as intruding upon their right to 'define and express their identity'? Could those subject to college admissions preferences raise claims that race or gender classifications deny their individual effort to 'define and express their identity'?"

All law when ceases to be Just (virtuous), ceases to be Law.

All “unjust” law is “null and void” and you have a Duty to disobey all unjust law and all justices and politicians have a duty to throw out ALL unjust (evil) law. (Justice John Marashall, Father of Jurisprudence).

There is no Natural Right from God to sodomize others and use human beings in sterile, meaningless, vile, unnatural, degrading ways.

The SCOTUS committed Treason and they know it-—they removed Right Reason and Natural Law Theory—both embedded into our “Justice” (virtue) System.

They literally removed Rule of Law (Higher Law/God’s) for Rule of Man (them). They really, REALLY need to be impeached. It is nothing but tyranny.

Not even States have the “Natural Right” to change the definition of marriage and make it irrational and set up a system when babies are denied their biological mother or father. It is EVILL and denies babies their Natural Right and parents their Natural Duty-—the basis of American Law.

Just Law has to promote “public virtue” ALWAYS——all other “Law” that is evil (like theft, killing babies, welfare——is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

As mentioned in related threads, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay “marriage” as a right. So regarding activist justices having the confidence to breach the Founding States’ division of federal and state government powers by stealing 10th Amendment-protected state power to legalize gay “marriage” from the bench for example, the states shot their feet off when they ratifed the 17th Amendment. After all, activist justices who were confirmed by corrupt senators don’t have to worry about such senators working with the House to impeach and remove them from the bench when they blatantly ignore state sovereignty.

Also note that since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called right to have an abortion, the same argument concerning the corrupt Senate applies as well.

As a side note to this rant, please consider the following. Given that a conservative is elected POTUS, if patriots can elect a non-RINO, 2/3 conservative supermajority to the Senate in the ’16 elections, then Congress can impeach and remove activist justices from the bench.

The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and activist justices along with it.

“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government....At the same time, 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.”

— Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

Only laws can be “overturned,” and courts do NOT make laws.

The courts are only legitimately empowered to rule in the cases that come before them, which rulings are binding only on the parties to those cases. That’s it. They have no legislative powers, no veto powers, no executive powers.

Any opinions the courts has are their own. They are not binding on the other branches of government, whose officers have sworn a sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution, not to obey usurping, immoral, out of control judges.

The judicial supremacist lie is destroying this free republic.

To believe the judicial supremacist lie, that the courts rule over us, no matter how immoral or unconstitutional their opinions, you have to believe some really unbelievable, ridiculous, and even frightening things.

You have to believe that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednigo were wrong. They should have gone ahead and bowed down to Nebuchadnezzar’s golden idol.

You have to believe that the Apostles were wrong. They should have shut up about the Gospel of Jesus Christ when they were told by civil authorities to do so. .

You have to believe that the great Roman statesman Cicero was wrong, that there is no universally-applicable natural law which binds all men everywhere, throughout time.

You have to believe that Augustine was wrong when he said that, “an unjust law is no law at all.”

You have to believe that Thomas Aquinas was wrong when he said that, “Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence.”

You have to believe that William Blackstone was wrong when he said, “this natural law, being as old as mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, from this original.”

You have to believe that Samuel Adams was wrong when he said that, “[A]ll men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator.”

You have to believe that Alexander Hamilton was wrong when he said that, “The Sacred Rights of Mankind...are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power,” and that “the judiciary... has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

You have to believe that Thomas Jefferson was wrong when he said that, “it is a very dangerous doctrine to consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

You have to believe that all of America’s founders were wrong when they challenged and defeated the supreme civil authority of that old tyrant King George III.

You have to believe that Abraham Lincoln was wrong when, in his first Inaugural Address, he said 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...”

You have to believe that Justice Taney should have been obeyed into perpetuity when he pronounced in the infamous Dred Scott opinion that black men were not human beings.

You have to believe that it was fine for a tinpot probate judge to pronounce a literal death sentence by dehydration and starvation on a helpless disabled woman, and that is was acceptable to have the entire legal and political establishment of Florida and of the United States stand passively by as her tormentors tortured her to death by cruel and unusual means.

You have to believe that it’s just fine that, by judicial decree, and through the passive connivance of a whole generation of American lawyers and politicians, more than fifty-five million defenseless babies have been brutally slaughtered, even though those same politicians swore a sacred oath to God to provide equal protection for the right to life of every person under their jurisdiction

You have to believe that nobody can do a thing when judges, in gross violation of the laws of nature and nature’s God, and contrary to every single clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution of the United States, invent an imaginary “right” for a man to “marry” a man, or for a woman to “marry” a woman, even though such a perverted thing is physically, naturally, impossible.

You have to believe that our Constitution, and our republican form of government, with its necessary checks and balances, is a dead letter.

You have to believe that the sacred oath of office is nothing more than a formality or a photo op.

Please, quit believing nonsense. It’s killing people, and destroying American self-government in liberty.

— Tom Hoefling

Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan must be impeached.

There is no delegation to the Federal government for their regulation of marriage, the power is reserved to the States.

For the USSC to use the equal protection clause to claim jurisdiction they must first adopt a radical and novel definition of “marriage”

Once the radical and novel definition of “marriage” has been adopted by the USSC they may then make a legitimate claim of an equal protection issue, but not until they have adopted the radical and novel definition of “marriage” is there an equal protection issue.

Not until they have adopted the radical and novel definition of “marriage” may they have the fig leaf of jurisdiction thus paving the way for the subsequent illicit imposition of the radical and novel definition of “marriage”

This circular absurdity is nothing compared to the breathtaking arrogance of declaring what the law of each and all of the States shall be.

By declaring that homosexuals may, in each and every State, marry, they have made themselves a Super-Legislature of ALL the States collectively as a whole - a Branch of Government which does not exist under the U.S. Constitution!

Not only have the made themselves legislators, they have erected a fourth Branch of Government. A fourth Branch of Government which substitutes its legislation for that of each and all of the States.

They have legislated. They have intruded upon the independent sovereignty of the States. They have acted entirely outside the Constitution.

To conceal and “justify” their compound criminality they clothe it with an invented “fundamental right” where there is no such right.

The compound criminality of Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan demands their impeachment.

They are of course right, we allow edicts like this to stand and there can be no rule of law in this country.

We must resist and refuses with every means at our disposal in the name of our republic and the democracy it was suppose to protect.

Theses lawless and corrupt federal employees must be put back into their place of deciding Cases not rewriting centeries old Law in defiance of past practice, tradition, the leglsators witters understanding of English, and in this case even their own court precedence.

This is not only an inherently unfair, unjust, and entirely lawless act by 5 federal employees its debases the very concept of rule of law, rather than 5 corrupt men in black robes.

The people must be made to understand this is a fundamental issue to the existence of a free republic where laws are written by the people thou their legislators, and only enforced by their courts in a manner that must be consistent with not only the Text of said law but the history.

The Text does not change and therefore the interpretation cannot either.

We cannot abandon this issue without abandoning rule of law in our Republic.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.