BLAME SUPREMES FOR 'CLASH' WITH 1ST AMENDMENT

'I can't think of a situation where this invented right should trump religious liberty'

Published: 12 hours ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/10/runruh.jpg

Think the courts were busy with same-sex “marriage” cases before? Wait until you see what happens as a result of the Supreme Court’s opinion that “invented” same-sex “marriage” for the United States.

That’s the opinion of several outspoken leaders who have fought, or watched, battles on the issue, from a sitting judge to a key attorney in the battle, and even a sitting state attorney general whose opinion conflicts directly with the “five lawyers” in Washington who ruled recently.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Ken Connelly, who has been involved in the issue extensively, told WND on Wednesday that the old characterization of conflicting rights is essentially right.

That’s the description that person A has a right to swing a fist, but that right ends where person B’s nose starts.

“It is unassailable that by redefining marriage, the Supreme Court has set up a clash between the asserted right to same-sex marriage and religious liberty,” he said.

He sees the dispute between homosexuals who want same-sex “marriage” services and Christians who may be told to provide them as clear.

“I can’t think of a situation where this invented right should trump religious liberty, whether they be a public official or a private individual,” he said.

He noted he doesn’t expect every court to respect those First Amendment religious rights, even though there additionally are federal and state laws protecting religious rights.

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who recused himself from some actions in his state earlier because he previously made statements supporting biblical marriage, told WND that’s the point Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was making in his dissent last week.

Thomas, he said, warned of the wide range of implications for religious liberty from the Supremes’ endorsement of same-sex “marriage.”

Specifically, Thomas warned that it appeared inevitable that the two will come into conflict.

And Thomas noted that the majority appeared “unmoved” by the looming clash.

Moore said the opinion from the Washington “lawyers,” as one of the Supreme Court dissents described the majority, is dangerous because it calls same-sex “marriage” a fundamental right.

“People have no idea what the future holds with regards to same-sex marriage,” he said.

It was Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who released an opinion that county clerks in his state can essentially ignore the Supreme Court’s conclusion that issuing licenses to same-sex duos is mandatory.

He cited the clerks’ religious freedom.

He wrote, “County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.”

He was immediately blasted on leftist interests. At Think Progress a statement from attorney Neel Lane who represented same-sex duos said the advice was “legally deficient,” suggesting perhaps that there is an attitude in the left that is willing to simply bulldoze over the First Amendment’s religious rights.

Nowhere is the conflict more apparent than in Alabama, where traditional marriage long has had huge support, inside the courts and out. It wasn’t until U.S. District Judge Callie Granade last winter ordered the state to recognize same-sex “marriage” that the first waved crashed on shore.

Even now, Moore notes that the majority opinion is an “interpretation” of the Constitution, not the law of the land, which the Constitution is.

Meanwhile, Granade has renewed issuing orders that the state abrogate the will of its voters and follow her opinion on same-sex “marriage,” now that it’s shared by those “five lawyers” in Washington, including two justices who were asked to recuse from the case because they already had advocated publicly for same-sex “marriage” by performing those ceremonies.

Those two, Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg, snubbed motions submitted to the court raising the issue that ordinary judicial ethics require judges to stay out of a case when there is even the appearance of partiality, as many perceived in this case.

ABC reported on Wednesday that there still were a handful of counties in Alabama “refusing to grant gay marriages.”

And the report said that “gay marriage advocates” were considering seeking penalties for those who disagreed with them, no matter if that person was exercising his or her First Amendment right to practice a religious faith.

Granade’s order, too, which said probate judges cannot discriminate against homosexuals, doesn’t affect counties where officials simply stopped granting any marriage licenses.

Shannon Minter, of the special-rights group called National Center for Lesbian Rights, suggested contempt charges against those facing the homosexual demands now.

One result of the threats is that clerks in Arkansas and Mississippi resigned rather than face the forced issuance of same-sex “marriage” forms for homosexuals.

In an interview with Al.com, Moore compared the decision to the infamous Supreme Court Dred Scott ruling, determining that blacks were not equal to whites.

He pointed out the nation fought the Civil War to resolve that error.

Moore told the media outlet, “I’m not disputing that the Supreme Court ruling is not a precedent for the lower courts. But I am saying that it’s not in accordance with the Constitution.”

He continued, “The law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. What we are talking about here is an interpretation of the Constitution.”

“”In the Dred Scott case (1856 U.S. Supreme Court ruling) the Supreme Court ruled that blacks were property, not citizens of the U.S.,” said Moore. “That was the interpretation of the majority of the court. Were they right? Of course not.”

He continued, “Judges interpret the Constitution and if you interpret it as Justice Kennedy did (and four other justices) then same sex marriage is constitutional. But if you interpret it as justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas did, it is not constitutional. And not only is it not constitutional … it contradicts the Constitution and as Justice Thomas said it is at odds with the Constitution and the principles on which this nation were founded.”

WND had reported only a day earlier that the negative reaction to the Supreme Court’s reaction of same-sex marriage was surging, with clerks quitting, judges dropping all procedures to issue any marriage licenses, and even one U.S. senator telling people it should be ignored.

The Associated Press reported it found in a survey that multiple counties in Alabama were not issuing licenses.

“A Queer Thing Happened to America” chronicles the amazing transformation of America over the last 40 years and addresses the question head-on: Is there really a homosexual agenda, or is it a fiction of the religious right? Get your copy of the book the publishing world was afraid to touch!

The report said Alabama laws specify that probate judges “may” issue marriage licenses, so they are not required to do anything.

AP also reported a county clerk in Arkansas announced her resignation because of her religious and moral opposition to the mandate for same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, in Kentucky, several county clerks announced they would not issue marriage licenses to “gay” couples. In Rowan County, Clerk Kim Davis said her office has decided to stop issuing marriage certificates altogether to avoid discrimination lawsuits.

And Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a candidate for GOP nomination for president, told NPR that there are many across America who can just ignore it.

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.”

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/01/150125cruz.jpg

U.S. Sen Ted Cruz, R-Texas

He said it’s tragic that the Supreme Court justices decided in the case to rewrite the Constitution instead of doing their job, which was 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.

WND reported Monday that not only did the court’s mandate for same-sex marriage not resolve the controversy, it triggered a wave of rejection.

“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.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/blame-supremes-for-clash-with-1st-amendment/#K0BJqBP5JtWVmvbs.99

Conservative Musings

Thursday, July 2, 2015

What Happens When Gay Marriage Clashes With Freedom Of Religion? Under Current Court, Freedom Of Religion Ends.

BLAME SUPREMES FOR 'CLASH' WITH 1ST AMENDMENT

'I can't think of a situation where this invented right should trump religious liberty'

No comments:

Post a Comment