U.S. lacks authority to redefine ‘fundamental right’ of marriage

print
By David Tulis

The federal supreme court is expected to rule in June on the claims by gay activists that state jurisdiction over marriage is a constitutional wrong that deprives them of a fundamental right.

The gay argument is for unitary government that overrules the will of the people in each respective state that upholds marriage. Courts of appeal and numerous district courts claim that it violates the U.S constitution for states to admit marriage is being only between one man and one woman.

The arguments are specious legally, and morally contemptible. They err against the created order as ordained by God, and put the personal feelings of the plaintiffs over the social order and benefit that families bring to children — that families recognized and favored in law bring to each individual child who has a right to be reared by his father and his mother. Courts and progressive activists seek to undo the cultural and moral order of their creator by obtaining from the high court a ruling that deconstructs marriage, and obliterates further the federal system of divided government.

An important defender of the federal system of covenantal government in the U.S. is Roy S. Moore, chief justice of the Alabama supreme court. He says the U.S. courts do not have authority to redefine a fundamental right to marry. In a letter directing probate (marrying) judges in his state, he says the power over marriage resides with the people, that democratic processes protect and recognize these rights, and that probate judges are under no obligation to honor the withdrawal of a pretended stay and order from U.S. district court judge Callie Granade.

Moore upholds lesser magistrate doctrine

Judge Moore warns “against any unlawful intrusion’ into the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Alabama, and suggests that at most U.S. district court actions are voluntary and affecting only a single party, that state’s attorney general, the sole defendant in the case. Three of the letter’s four pages are below (the last omitted as it contains only Judge Moore’s signature).

Page 1 MoorePage 2 MoorePage 3 Moore

Leave a Reply