Jim Obergefell – whose name was on the case used to create same-sex marriage – criticized a Tennessee bill that would not recognize the Supreme Court’s decision in the state.
... Tennessee’s House Bill 1412 is described as “an Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 36, relative to the ‘Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act.”
It states: “Five justices of the United States Supreme Court issued a lawless opinion with no basis in American law or history, purporting to overturn natural marriage and find a ‘right’ to same-sex ‘marriage’ in the United States Constitution.”
The bill cites Chief Justice John Roberts, who said in his minority dissent that the decision had “no basis in the Constitution.”
The Tennessee bill notes that just two years ago, the Supreme Court itself ruled that “states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce.”
“Whereas, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, two justices essential to the bare five justice majority in Obergefell, failed to recuse themselves from considering of the case, after demonstrating personal bias in its outcome, by officiating at and advocating for same-sex ‘marriage’ ceremonies, during the pendency of proceedings on the issue, in violation of 28 U.S.C 455 (‘Any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’)
“Our rights come from the Creator, not the state, and our ‘Constitution – like the Declaration of Independence before it – was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from – not provided by – the state.’”
The bottom line for the state?
“Natural marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman as recognized by the people of Tennessee remains the law in Tennessee, regardless of any court decision to the contrary. Any court decision purporting to strike down natural marriage, including Obergefell v. Hodges … is unauthoritative, void, and of no effect.”
The bill argues there is precedent for refusing to obey the Supreme Court, when the Wisconsin Legislature refused to file a Supreme Court mandate regarding the fugitive slave law nearly 160 years ago.
“In addition to Wisconsin, the legislatures of Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Michigan actively nullified the Fugitive Slave Act and repugnant decisions of the United States Supreme Court by passing ‘personal liberty’ laws, making it nearly impossible to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act in those states,” the lawmakers wrote.
Tennessee’s proposal, which is expected to be discussed during the coming legislative session, points out the Supreme Court “is not the sole and final arbiter of the powers of the states under the ninth and tenth amendments, when it acts in an area outside of its jurisdiction.”
... There also are nearly a dozen counties in Alabama where officials have refused to issue any marriage licenses. The state law says officials “may” issue licenses, not “shall” or “will,” leaving the outcome of any legal challenge uncertain.
Also, state legislatures in multiple states have been busy creating exemptions for those who have religious objections to same-sex marriage.
In Arkansas, House Majority Leader Ken Bragg, a Republican, said his legislature is examining its options.
“We refuse to simply shrug our shoulders and abandon basic principles that have guided our country successfully for the past 239 years,” he said in a statement. “We will work with other conservative leaders in our state and across the nation, strengthen the bonds of unity, and explore all available options. That certainly includes increased legislative protections for our First Amendment freedoms to exercise religion.”
Lawmakers in other states, including Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Utah and Wisconsin, also are considering legislation.
Many supporters of traditional marriage argue public sentiment is strongly against the Supreme Court’s mandate. Voters in 31 states in recent years having adopted legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.