Overthrow the Judicial Dictatorship: The Scalia dissent demonstrates why the fight for traditional values cannot and must not stop

Commentators have missed the real significance of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in the gay marriage case. He calls the decision a judicial “Putsch,” an attempt to overthrow a form of government—ours. His dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, was written “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

His comment about the Court using the kind of reasoning we find in a fortune cookie is a funny line. But there is much of the Scalia dissent that is not funny and which serves as a warning to the American people about what the Court has done to us.

Scalia understands the power and meaning of words and he chose the word “putsch” for a specific purpose. One definition of the term means “a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government…” Another definition is “a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed.”

Hence, Scalia is saying this was not only a blatant power grab and the creation of a “right” that does not exist, but a decision that depends on public ignorance about what is really taking place. It is our system of checks and balances and self-rule that has been undermined, he says.

In that sense, he is warning us that we need to understand the real significance of this decision, and go beyond all the commentators talking about “marriage equality” and “equal rights” for homosexuals. In effect, he is saying that the decision is really not about gay rights, but about the future of our constitutional republic, and the ability of the people to govern themselves rather than be governed by an elite panel making up laws and rights as they go.

Scalia’s dissent cannot be understood by listening to summaries made by commentators who probably didn’t read it. Although I may be accused of exaggerating the import of his dissent, my conclusion is that he is calling for nothing less than the American people to understand that a judicial dictatorship has emerged in this country and that its power must be addressed, checked, and overruled.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

ALABAMA COUNTIES STOP ISSUING MARRIAGE LICENSES INDEFINITELY

Pike County officials haven’t issued marriage licenses in months, and today Probate Judge Wes Allen announced that his office is now permanently out of the marriage business.

“My office discontinued issuing marriage licenses in February and I have no plans to put Pike County back into the marriage business,” Allen wrote in a statement. “The policy of my office regarding marriage is no different today than it was yesterday.”

Geneva County Probate Judge Fred Hamic also said he intends to permanently close the marriage license bureau in his office, if his attorneys don’t object.

Both judges cited Alabama Code Section 30-1-9: “Marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate of the several counties.”

The law says “may” instead of “shall”, Hamic said, which makes a big difference. He said the law permits probate judges to opt of of isuing marriage licenses.

“This decision is not based on me being a homophobic, people can do whatever they want in private,” Hamic said. “It is based strictly on my Christian beliefs.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

Governor Abbott Asserts The Right Of Texas To Protect And Defend Religious Liberty..

Texas Gov. Abbott's statement on SCOTUS gay marriage ruling

Governor Greg Abbott today released the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling:

“The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature. Five Justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States.

“Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.

“The Texas Constitution guarantees that ‘[n]o human authority ought, in any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion.’ The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion; and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, combined with the newly enacted Pastor Protection Act, provide robust legal protections to Texans whose faith commands them to adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage.

“As I have done in the past, I will continue to defend the religious liberties of all Texans—including those whose conscience dictates that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman. Later today, I will be issuing a directive to state agencies instructing them to prioritize the protection of Texans’ religious liberties.”

Via: The Lonely Libertarian

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] Ted Cruz Has An EPIC Message For ‘Rogue’ Supreme Court Justices

Texas Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz did not hold back in expressing what he thinks about the Supreme Court’s two most controversial decisions in recent memory.

Cruz told radio talk show host Sean Hannity: “Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.

“I couldn’t say it more eloquently,” Hannity responded.

“Yesterday and today were both naked and shameless judicial activism,” Cruz went on. “Neither decision — the decision yesterday rewriting Obamacare for the second time. Six justices joined the Obama administration. You now have President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius and six justices responsible for forcing this failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans, and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oaths.”

“And then today, this radical decision purporting to strike down the marriage laws of every state. It has no connection to the United States Constitution. They are simply making it up,” Cruz said. “It is lawless, and in doing so, they have undermined the fundamentally legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court.”

Via: Western Journalism

Continue Reading....

THE SILENCING: Paper Will Limit Anti-Gay Marriage Op-Eds

The editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. is taking a hardcore stance against those who disagree with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage.

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” they declared. 

After receiving strong pushback, the newspaper’s editorial board, which is overseen by Editorial Page Editor John Micek, quickly revised its policy. Freedom of speech will be allowed — but only for a “limited” period of time.

Micek explained on Twitter: “Clarification: We will not foreclose discussion of the high court’s decision, but arguments that gay marriage is wrong/unnatural are out.”

Before that, there was this: “From the edit: ‘PL/PN will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.’ …This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist or anti-Semitc letters. To that, we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.”

The notice at the top of the editorial page of the website now reads: “12:58 p.m. This post has been updated to further elaborate PennLive’s policy for accepting letters and op-Eds on same-sex marriage.”

A wealth of commenters were not pleased.

• “Big Jasper” opposes the policy: “Nice to see strict speech codes will be enforced by a ‘free’ press,” he wrote. “No need to worry about that messy ‘freedom of expression’ thing anymore.”

• “Motown” remarked, “God has the real say not some loony editorial board.”

• And “hgunwilltravel0″ said this: “In layman’s terms, any Christian view on anything will not be tolerated on this liberal website. Say it like it is and cut to the chase, and add my statement above to your manifesto.”

• “Chappedunderkee” focused on his bottom line and saw the glass half full. “I don’t mind who’s marrying who. It’s a good day to be a divorce lawyer.”

The editorial heavily praised the Supreme Court ruling, saying, “[Justice Anthony] Kennedy nailed it: There are no rights more fundamental than due process and equal treatment under the law.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Alito Warns: Defenders of Traditional Marriage Now Risk Being Treated as Bigots by Governments, Employers, Schools

(CNSNews.com) - In his dissent from the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared that same-sex marriage is a right, Justice Samuel Alito said the court had falsely likened opposition to same-sex marriage to racism and that its decision “will be used to vilify Americans unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.”

Alito warned that in the wake of the court’s ruling, Americans who dare to publicly express views in favor the traditional understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman will risk recrimination.

“I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools,” Alito wrote.

“By imposing its own views on the entire country,” he said, “the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.”

Here is a key excerpt from Alito’s dissent:

Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reas­sure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. Ante, at 26–27. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

The system of federalism established by our Constitu­tion provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex mar­riage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facili­tates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turn- about is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading..... 

Same-Sex Marriage Won’t Bring Us Peace

For decades, a growing narrative from LGBT activists has convinced a great portion of the U.S. public that cultural peace would reign if social conservatives could just get with the times on marriage.

This narrative has recently gained new legs with rulings by federal judges that say marriage laws are based in animus against people with same-sex attractions. Likewise, states and localities regularly pass so-called “non-discrimination laws” that restrict freedom of speech, religion, property ownership, and more.

Despite today’s ruling, however, social conservatives should reject this flawed thinking—not just because of their love for people with same-sex attractions, or because of the Supreme Court’s abuse of the U.S. Constitution, but to protect the American values of free speech and religious liberty.

Indeed, a simple look at the last 10 years of same-sex “marriage” laws in Canada and other nations shows that rather than bring a new utopia to America, changing the legal definition of marriage would lead to further restrictions of religious liberty, undermine parental rights, and lead to worse formative years for children.

Repressing Free Speech and Religious Practice

In Canada, redefining marriage has led straight to the persecution of Christians. Just a decade ago, Canada made same-sex marriage legal, leading to fines for a Catholic-owned Knights of Columbus hall for refusing to host a homosexual wedding reception. Likewise, in 2005, Calgary Bishop Fred Henry was called before a Human Rights Tribunal for writing a public letter defending Catholic doctrine on marriage. The complaint was withdrawn, but the message was clear: Dissent is not tolerable under the new regime.

In America, religious freedom includes religious expression, but not so in Canada, it appears. A Catholic church at which two cohabiting homosexual men were altar servers came to the attention of the local bishop due to a letter signed by 12 parishioners.

When Bishop Nicola de Angelis went to the priest, citing Catholic doctrine, one of the servers launched a human-rights case. The case sought $25,000 from the bishop and $20,000 from each of the 12 parishioners who signed the letter. It was also dropped, but not until the bishop, like Henry, had spent considerable money in his legal defense.

Canada was one of the first nations to legally redefine marriage, but other nations are seeing similar consequences of trying to undermine what God has created. Mayors in France have been told they could not refuse to preside over same-sex ceremonies and a British marriage registrar was denied freedom for her religious beliefs, though just months earlier a demoted government employee’s right to criticize marriage redefinition was protected by courts. Of course, the same thing has already been happening in North Carolina, where civil magistrates whose consciences prevent them from performing gay marriage ceremonies must quit their job or face fines.

Via: The Federlist

Continue Reading...

[AUDIO] Cruz: Rulings among the 'darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history'

 

“Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history,” he said on The Sean Hannity Show, the Fox pundit’s radio program, on Friday.

“Yesterday and today were both naked and shameless judicial activism.”

 

While many other Republican presidential hopefuls sent out statements deriding the Friday decision, Cruz’s campaign did not. 

He took to the Senate floor to slam the Affordable Care Act ruling on Thursday, panning it as “disgraceful.”

 

“Six justices joined the Obama administration, you now have Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, and six justices responsible for forcing failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans, and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oath,” he told Hannity Friday. 

 

He then shifted to Friday’s decision. 

 

“Today, this radical decision purporting to down the marriage laws of every state. It has no connection to the United States Constitution,” he said. 

 

“They are simply making it up. It is lawless, and in doing so, they have undermined the fundamental legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court.”

 

Cruz has warned against this decision for months and filed text for a constitutional amendment in April that defines marriage as heterosexual. 

 

In a narrow victory for advocates of same-sex marriage, Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the four liberal-leaning justices on Friday to make those marriages legal across the country. He framed marriage as a fundamental right and argued that it would be a violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause to bar same-sex couples from marrying. 

 

But all four conservative justices penned dissents criticizing that ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the decision has “nothing to do” with the constitution. Fresh off of his scathing dissent in Thursday’s 6-3 decision to back the administration’s expansion of health care subsidies to those in states that hadn’t set up localized exchanges, Justice Antonin Scalia also penned his own dissent. 

 

“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy,” he wrote. 

 

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....

Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court's Huge Gay Marriage Decision

June 26, 2015 Same-sex marriage is now a right in every state in the country, following ahistoric 5-4 decision from the Supreme Court Friday. The four justices who disagreed with the Court's opinion, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, each wrote their own dissent laying out just why they believed the majority to be wrong.

Here's their reasoning.

Chief Justice John Roberts

Roberts argument centered around the need to preserve states' rights over what he viewed as following the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said "five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law."

While Roberts said he did not "begrudge" any of the celebrations that would follow the Court ruling, he had serious concerns that the Court had extended its role from Constitutional enforcer to activist.

"Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law," he wrote.

While, he recognized the decision would be hailed as a major victory for same-sex couples and their allies, he noted they had been set back.

"Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today," Roberts wrote. "Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."

Justice Antonin Scalia

According to Justice Antonin Scalia, today's majority ruling represents a "judicial Putsch."

In beginning his dissent, Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide. He stated he wanted to write a separate dissent "to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy."

"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," Scalia wrote. "But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law."

Via: National Journal

Continue Reading....