Brian Brown, president of National Organization for Marriage, has a stiffy. He is simply thrilled with Roy Moore's actions in Alabama that defy the rule of law. Last night Brown authored: “BREAKING: Alabama Chief Justice Orders State Judges To Refrain From Issuing Same-Sex 'Marriage' Licenses.” According to Judge Brown:
While a narrow majority of the US Supreme Court purported to redefine marriage for the country in the Obergefell ruling, the case they considered only involved four states in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the Obergefell ruling, several developments have called into question the SCOTUS majority's claimed scope of their ruling.
Let's take this a step at a time. First of all the Supreme Court resolves constitutional controversies. Unanimous decisions are rare. Narrow rulings are common. After all, they are deciding a controversy. The Court's ruling is simple: Gay citizens have a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. That constitutional right applies to all 50 states and territories. It's not that complicated.
A compelling statement issued by over seventy legal scholars made the case that the Obergefell ruling utterly lacked any constitutional basis, was anti-constitutional and illegitimate. They declared that state officials should consider the Obergefell ruling to be binding only on the specific parties to that case.That links to Robert George's effort to nullify Obergefell. If memory serves me correctly only 14 signers are lawyers. Most of those would not be considered scholars. This endeavor died on the vine. It got buried in American Principles Project's website and is no longer linked from the APP home page. The reason for this is that nullification is illegal and unconstitutional. I suspect that the reaction became a source of embarrassment to some of these folks and George seems to be under enough pressure from Princeton University.
What this is really about:
In simplest terms, neither Brown nor George have ever demonstrated that anyone has ever been injured by same-sex marriage. They are both at the extreme right of Catholic faith. They do not like same-sex marriage because of the teachings of the Catholic Church which stem from the Church's disapproval of gay people. Judge Moore's problem is similarly based on his ultra-conservative flavor of Christianity. Whatever happened to the Establishment Clause?
These legal developments are consistent with the developing resistance in America to the Supreme Court's attempt to legislate from the bench when it comes to marriage, ignoring the federal constitution in the process and inventing out of thin air a "right" to same-sex 'marriage.'Judge Moore's problems are not something that is “developing.” He has been trying to frustrate the constitutional rights of gay citizens for some time. “Judicial activism” means a decision that Brown doesn't like. Last time I checked most Americans support the right of gay people to marry. Opponents to marriage equality have likely become indifferent as they come to recognize that same-sex marriage doesn't affect them. The promised parade of horribles seems to have passed them by. A developing resistance describes Mr. Brown's continued obstinance.
The American people reject judicial activism of the US Supreme Court and their attempt to redefine marriage. They continue to support marriage as it has existed throughout our nation's history, the union of one man and one woman.
But that is all irrelevant. The reality is that Obergefell represents the law of the land. A constitutional amendment because conservative Christians think that their approval is required is simply not a reality. Mr. Brown needs to find a new hobby.