By Selwyn Duke
When the Supreme Court issued the Obergefell v. Hodges opinion in 2015, which claimed that states must recognize and perform same-sex “marriages,” then-Ohio governor John Kasich said that “the court has ruled and it’s time to move on.” This reflected how even many GOP politicians were no doubt happy that judges freed them from having to take a stand on a controversial issue. Now they could just say, “Well, we tried! But the courts have ruled! Let’s talk about nation-building — overseas!”
Seven years on and sinking ever further, 12 liberal Republican senators have joined all their Democrat colleagues to advance the misnamed Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) to their chamber’s floor for formal debate. The bill, HR 8404, would “codify” Obergefell, giving it the imprimatur of law in a move that only makes sense as a tacit admission that a SCOTUS opinion isn’t law (and, of course, it isn’t). Yet there’s something else that isn’t law, at least in spirit: an unjust law.
For this reason, judges can judge and Congress can codify copiously, but it means nothing if states simply echo Augustine of Hippo and say, lex iniusta non est lex (an unjust law is no law at all) — and will be nullified.
There’s good reason to nullify the RFMA should it become law (most likely), too. Not only is it unconstitutional, but critics claim that it poses a threat to religious liberty.
Read the rest here.
What does the Constitution say about marriage, heterosexual or same sex ? Absolutely nothing . If you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex . Who is forcing you to do this ?
Posted by: Robert Berger | November 17, 2022 at 07:14 PM