Justices on the Supreme Court of Louisiana have ripped into the U.S. Supreme Court for the “complete insult” of creating “same-sex marriage.”
In its dismissal of a state marriage case because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, the Louisiana judges pointedly emphasized “that the freedom of religious organizations to perform marriage ceremonies according to the dictates of their faith is not implicated herein.”
One judge, Jefferson Hughes, even dissented from the decision to let the state issue drop because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision.
“Judges instruct jurors every week not to surrender their honest convictions merely to reach agreement. I cannot do so now, and respectfully dissent. Marriage is not only for the parties. Its purpose is to provide children with a safe and stable environment in which to grow. It is the epitome of civilization. Its definition cannot be changed by legalisms,” he wrote.
He said the Louisiana case involves adoption, and he was troubled by the prospect of “adoption by same sex partners of a young child of the same sex.”
“Does the 5-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court automatically legalize this type of adoption? While the majority opinion of Justice Kennedy leaves it to the various courts and agencies to hash out these issues, I do not concede the reinterpretation of every statute premised upon traditional marriage,” he warned.
Others agreed to allow the case to drop but were displeased by being forced into the decision.
“Our U.S. Constitution envisions change through democracy and reserves to the states and the people all powers not delegated to the federal government. … Unilaterally, these five lawyers took for themselves a question the Constitution expressly leaves to the people and about which the people have been in open debate – the true democratic process,” wrote Louisiana Justice Jeannette Knoll.
“This is not a constitutionally mandated decision, but a super-legislative imposition of the majority’s will over the solemn expression of the people evidenced in their state constitutional definitions of marriage.”
Louisiana was among dozens of states in which voters adopted one-man-one-woman definitions of marriage. In many of those states, a single federal judge overturned the votes.
Knoll continued, “I write … to express my views concerning the horrific impact these five lawyers have made on the democratic rights of the American people to define marriage and the rights stemming by operation of law therefrom.
“The five unelected judges’ declaration that the right to marry whomever one chooses is a fundamental right is a mockery of those rights explicitly enumerated in our Bill of Rights,” Knoll wrote. “Simply stated, it is a legal fiction imposed upon the entirely of this nation because these five people think it should be.”
Knoll said it is “a sad day in American when five lawyers beholden to none and appointed for life can rob the people of their democratic process, forcing so-called civil liberties regarding who can marry on all Americans when the issue was decided by the states as solemn expressions of the will of the people.”
“Rather than a triumph of constitutionalism, the opinion of these five lawyers is an utter travesty ,”
Justice John Weimer noted that 77.78 percent of voters amended the Louisiana Constitution in 2004 define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
But he pointed to the responsibility of judges to follow the rule of law, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, Kansas Republican Gov. Sam Brownback issued an executive order that prohibits state his government from discriminating against clergy or religious organizations that decline to perform same-sex marriages on moral grounds.
WND previously reported other reactions to the Supreme Court’s creation of rights to same-sex marriage.
Lawsuits have been filed and clerks responsible for marriage licenses have resigned rather than violate their faith.
In Colorado, there’s a plan to formally define all same-sex marriages as civil unions.
Also, judges have stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether, and one U.S. senator said the decision should be ignored, comparing it to the Dred Scott ruling in which the U.S. Supreme Court formally declared blacks were inferior to whites.
And, notably, Christian leaders representing tens of millions of constituents have told the Supreme Court they will not abide by the decision.
WND reported it was Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a candidate for the GOP nomination for president, who told NPR that there are many across America who can just ignore the Supreme Court ruling.
He said the case was brought by parties from four states, but that “does not mean that those who are not parties to a case are bound by a judicial order.”
Cruz said it’s tragic that the Supreme Court justices decided to rewrite the Constitution instead of doing their job, which is to interpret the law.
“It is a sad moment for the court when you have judges seizing authority that does not belong to them,” he said.
Another Republican presidential candidate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, said, if elected, he would sign executive orders to protect businesses, churches and others from the “discrimination, intimidation, or civil or criminal penalties” expected for exercising their religious beliefs.
“This ruling by the five lawyers is no law at all,” said Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a prominent legal defender of biblical marriage. “It is lawless and must be treated as such.”
WND » Faith
Louisiana Supremes: "Marriage" ruling "complete insult"
No comments:
Post a Comment