Greg Abbott and The Supreme Court's Constitutional Duty Regarding Obergefell Same-Sex Marriage Decision
by Larry Perrault on July 20, 2015 at 10:12 AM
Look at this lefty report of TX Governor Greg Abbott being verbally assaulted in the airport in New York because he continues to oppose the imposition of same-sex marriage. Furthermore, this article cites The Constitution's Article VI as cause for Greg Abbott and Ted Cruz to be disbarred. That is totally inaccurate popular culture fabrication. Article VI speaks of all government officials at every level in The United States as being sworn and responsible to uphold The Constitution and all laws made, as The Constitution says, "in pursuance thereof," meaning not afterward, but in accordance with, being supreme for the country. We now have reams of statutes that are not pursuant to but outright defy the spirit and intent of The Constitution.
A) A judicial ruling is not "law," which is made by legislatures. "Legis" is Latin for law. Supreme Court decisions broadcast as "the law of the land" is a relatively recent academic invention that has fairly saturated law schools and been rained on the public by a relatively shallow popular print and broadcast media.
B) In fact, all public officials are sworn to uphold The Constitution, and defend their constituents when other organs of government offend it, and to hold those other organs to account. This decision quite directly violates the constitutional right of states and their constituents to legal powers not enumerated for the federal government in The Constitution, per the general spirit of The Constitution and The Tenth Amendment specifically. And this romantic rhapsody offered as a judicial opinion of Judge Anthony Kennedy, endorsed of course by four fantasizing liberal justices for whom the reasoning was practically irrelevant, is certainly not even a faint reflection of an enumerated federal power. Abbott and any other officials are doing their duty in defending the constitutional right of their state and citizens when they do everything possible to protect them from the imposition of this ruling as supposed "law" on states who have democratically determined otherwise.
I was disappointed to see George W. Bush’s Solicitor General Ted Olson, fall into a similar sentimental swoon in fighting along the way for this outcome: Surely there is a constitutional right for people to marry the person of their heart’s desire? No, there is not. The Constitution says nothing and should say nothing about marriage. The founders and anyone of their sense about due American powers, would find the idea absolutely outrageous; and I’m talking legally, not just about the practice itself, presuming as a non-lawyer that the law can still be held to reason and logic.
When asked about whether it couldn’t have been left to the states who appeared to be trending this direction in any case, Olson responded that a constitutional right cannot be left to the currents of democracy. He is absolutely correct that the court must defer to The Constitution above democracy. But he is wrong that this was a constitutional matter. Persons who do not meet marriage license requirements have no more right to a marriage license than my disabled low-vision self has a right to a license to operate a vehicle, or any other license I am unqualified for in credentials or physically.
Often in the discussion, the question is raised as to whether this is not justice similar to The Supreme Court ruling that overrode laws forbidding interracial marriage. Ted Cruz responded to that question correctly of course. The Supreme Court was absolutely right in that case. There is only one human race and all are entitled to equal rights under the law, under the clarification of The 14th Amendment, which was the argument of same-sex marriage advocates in Obergefell. What was happening to blacks was that they were denied the exact same rights as whites. They should be supplied the same marriage license: one that requires a man and woman.
But this ruling mandates a CHANGE in the license requisites of any state whose marriage license requires a man and a woman. And those license requirements are established by the states as appropriate under The Constitution. Cruz is again right that the affirming justices violated their oaths of fidelity to The Constitution. Abbott and anyone respecting the constitutional prerogative of the states, should dismiss this as surely as Lincoln dismissed The Dred Scott decision. America established a constitutional republic, not the judicial oligarchy that Thomas Jefferson warned about:
“You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” (a good judge extends the jurisdiction) and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Charles Jarvis, (28 September 1820).)
And Mike Huckabee aptly summarized the issue: “The Supreme Court is not The Supreme Being.” I have a lot of thoughts about the very negative social and personal costs this ruling poses for our society if not rebuked and dismissed. But I wanted to keep the focus on the legal question relevant to this case. I only want to add that as so many federal efforts are not about the claimed benefactors, the driving force of this issue was not homosexuals. It is progressives pursuing power and control in the federal government, which they use demographic groups as tools to achieve. Though some homosexuals are drawn as others of course are to the motivation of victimhood, their behavior and lives are almost entirely unrestricted, and any legal benefits can be easily arranged legally. I’ve always said that a primary legal partnership should be able to be arranged with any other single human being. Absent this progressive-constructed cause and largely even with it, I don’t think this is a great diversion for most active homosexuals.