Posted on 03/09/2016 5:07:21 AM PST by HomerBohn
On Friday, the Alabama Supreme Court rejected the US Supreme Court's marriage opinion and basically told them to take a hike in favor of following the Alabama Constitution and Alabama law.
On March 4, 2016, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered that all probate judges cease and desist in issuing marriage licenses to sodomies.
The court issued its 170-page ruling in favor of Petition for Mandamus by Liberty Counsel.
Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel said, "The ruling last year by the Alabama Supreme Court was historic, and is one of the most researched and well-reasoned opinions on marriage to be issued by any court in the country. Today's opinion by the Alabama Supreme Court calling the U.S. Supreme Court's marriage opinion 'illegitimate' will be remembered in history like the 'shot heard around the world."
"The Alabama Supreme Court has openly rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 marriage opinion, labeling it 'illegitimate' and without legal or precedential authority. This is a clear victory for the rule of law and an historic decision by the Alabama Supreme Court. The Judgement makes permanent the Alabama Supreme Court's order prohibiting probate judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Alabama Supreme Court has rejected the illegitimate opinion of five lawyers on the U.S. Supreme Court," added Staver.
Both Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker criticized the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Oberkfell case.
"I agree with the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, and with Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, that the majority opinion in Obergefell has no basis in the law, history, or tradition of this country," wrote Moore. "Obergefell is an unconstitutional exercise of judicial authority that usurps the legislative prerogative of the states to regulate their own domestic policy. Additionally, Obergefell seriously jeopardizes the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."
He then went on to call out the judiciary's tyranny in their opinion.
"Based upon arguments of 'love,' 'commitment,' and 'equal dignity' for same-sex couples, five lawyers, as Chief Justice Roberts so aptly describes the Obergefell majority, have declared a new social policy for the entire country," Chief Justice Moore added. "As the Chief Justice and Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito eloquently and accurately demonstrate in their dissents, the majority opinion in Obergefell is an act of raw power with no ascertainable foundation in the Constitution itself. The majority presumed to legislate for the entire country under the guise of interpreting the Constitution."
"The Obergefell majority presumes to amend the United States Constitution to create a right stated nowhere therein," he concluded. "That is a lawless act."
Moore also referenced the framers of the Constitution in his remarks.
"I submit that our Founders knew a lot more about freedom than [Justice Kennedy's opinion] indicates," Moore wrote. "They secured the freedoms we enjoy, not in judicial decrees of newly discovered rights, but in the Constitution and amendments thereto. That a majority of the Court may identify an "injustice" that merits constitutional correction does not dispense with the means the Constitution has provided in Article V for its own amendment."
"Although the Court could suggest that the Constitution would benefit from a particular amendment, the Court does not possess the authority to insert the amendment into the Constitution by the vehicle of a Court opinion and then to demand compliance with it."
Indeed, our founding fathers dealt quite harshly with sodomites. They would never have allowed these people to have a voice in the political process, much less advance an agenda to sodomize America by perverting the definition of marriage.
Justice Moore then gave wise counsel to sodomites who claim that they can engage in sodomy and be dignified in marriage.
"Historically, consummation of a marriage always involved an act of sexual intimacy that was dignified in the eyes of the law. An act of sexual intimacy between two men or two women, by contrast, was considered 'an infamous crime against nature' and a 'disgrace to human nature.' Homosexuals who seek the dignity of marriage must first forsake the sexual habits that disqualify them from admission to that hallowed institution. Surely more dignity attaches to participation in a fundamental institution on the terms it prescribes than to an attempt to wrest its definition to serve inordinate lusts that demean its historic dignity."
Indeed, I wish more people understood that liberty is not the ability to do what the law condemns, but to do what is right before our Creator. May God bless the Alabama Supreme Court!
Matt Staver concluded, "Justices and judges are bound to interpret the U.S. Constitution. When they write opinions that have no legal foundation, then their opinions lack legal legitimacy. That is what the five lawyers did on the U.S. Supreme Court in the marriage opinion. They ignored the Constitution, the Court's precedents, and millennia of human history. Their opinion calls into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. When we the people lose trust in the Justices, the authority of the Supreme Court is undermined. If the people accept this 5-4 opinion, then we have transitioned to a despotic form of government. The people must now decide if we are governed by the rule of law or the whim of unelected judges."
Exactly!
And they claim the are ‘conservative’.
Nope. Not falling for that again.
And, of course, in the words of the Supreme Court itself, via Chief Justice John Marshall:
From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as _____, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States." Why does a Judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
, Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison, 5, U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).
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.