Constitution Party: Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage Violates Rule of Law

The Constitution Party released the following in response to the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Obergefell v. Hodges:

The Constitution Party decries today’s Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage as an “unconstitutional decree that cannot legalize anything”, and equates it with the Dred Scott decision, which held that certain people must be recognized as chattel under the law.  Both decisions are unconstitutional and both are blatant examples of how the Rule of Law has been abandoned in America.

The Court’s decision does not alter the Constitution Party position that
marriage is between a man and a woman, as God ordained from the Creation.

The Constitution Party continues to support the principle of religious freedom, as outlined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Constitution Party believes this includes the God-given right of religious leaders to refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, as well as the right of individuals to disagree on the matter of same-sex marriage without government interference, according to the dictates of their own conscience.

The Constitution Party agrees with Thomas Jefferson when he said, “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so, ” and calls for Civil Disobedience against such violations of the Rule of Law.

Read the full Constitution Party statement on the Family here.

20 thoughts on “Constitution Party: Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage Violates Rule of Law

  1. The Truth

    The Holy Word of our heavenly Father states, it is an abomination to lie with man as you would with woman.
    Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. KJB

    Our country was founded on the commandments of our Father and our laws strictly enforce them.
    It should be always an crime that that goes against our Father in heaven’s word.
    This is not what “We the People” are wanting for America.
    To go against our Fathers word is to go against our constitution !

  2. Nicholas Sarwark

    The Constitution Party decries today’s Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage as an “unconstitutional decree that cannot legalize anything”, and equates it with the Dred Scott decision, which held that certain people must be recognized as chattel under the law.

    I remember thinking to myself yesterday when reading the opinion that forcing the government to treat all of its citizens equally before the law was just like when the Supreme Court upheld the idea of owning other human beings like property.

  3. Andy Craig

    The Crazy Party never fails to deliver. Bonus points for Random Capitalization. Adds just the right dash of “sovereign citizen pro se filing” to it.

    What I really want to find out, is how they plan to engage in “Civil Disobedience” (you know, just like Thoreau and MLK) against this ruling. Huckabee and Santorum also supposedly pledge to “go to jail” to fight it.

    The way I look at it, there are two ways the could do that: the first is not marry someone of the same sex. Oh no! But then it isn’t really civil disobedience, if it isn’t illegal and the government doesn’t care.

    The second, is to get arrested for blocking the courthouse door or crashing a wedding or something like that. Because the “George Wallace meets Westboro Baptist” look is so popular these days. Surely that will win over the hearts and minds of Americans. But even then, they wouldn’t really be charged for violating the Obergefell ruling.

    Turns out it’s kind of hard to disobey when nobody is demanding your obedience.

  4. langa

    Turns out it’s kind of hard to disobey when nobody is demanding your obedience.

    Well, these particular people may not be in a position to disobey the law, but obviously, someone is. That is to say, the law is obviously demanding obedience from someone.

    If compliance with the law is purely voluntary, then it’s not a law. It’s merely a suggestion.

  5. Nicholas Sarwark

    Well, these particular people may not be in a position to disobey the law, but obviously, someone is. That is to say, the law is obviously demanding obedience from someone.

    The only persons in a position to “disobey” the Obergefell ruling are government bureaucrats who could refuse to stamp some government forms for some citizens, but continue to stamp some government forms for other citizens.

    Good luck getting people to rally around that, essentially the DMV being even more rude and unhelpful than normal to gays than the straights.

  6. paulie

    What I really want to find out, is how they plan to engage in “Civil Disobedience” (you know, just like Thoreau and MLK) against this ruling.

    Well, for example, they could be hospital employees who refuse next of kin status to a gay spouse because they don’t recognize it as a valid marriage, even if the law does.

    Or they ma be some kind of government employee, for example an immigration clerk who would deny a gay spouse immigration even though the law says otherwise, a prison guard who would deny gay couples conjugal visits, etc, etc.

  7. Andy Craig

    I must have missed the part of Civil Disobedience where Thoreau demanded his neighbors continue to pay him for a job he accepted and then refused to do.

  8. paulie

    Thoreau? What kind of name is that….French? What are you, a G** D*** surrender monkey or something? 🙂

  9. Sean Scallon

    The CP would have been in a position to gain from this if more Republicans were willing to accept the decision. Instead we hear a lot of political posturing about getting rid of the court, nullification, and Constitutional amendments for their politicians. I will say this for the GOP, they’re make damn good sure no non-major party gets on their Right to exploit any kind difference or disillusionment. They just double-down with more radicalism to the point where they sound like CP would have sounded 10 years ago. At this point, the CP has become pointless.

  10. independent voter

    The reality is that Republicans have accepted the decision. No sitting Republican governor has done anything about nullification. Constitution Party could make some gains among reality-based anti-same-sex-marrriage Republican voters. That might only be 53 people, but it’s still a gain.

  11. paulie

    ” reality-based anti-same-sex-marrriage Republican voters”

    Even less reality based than if you take out the Republican part, although that’s just less than absolute zero.

  12. independent voter

    Ridiculous. You can recognize the reality of a situation while still being opposed to it.

  13. paulie

    Their opposition is not reality-based. All of their claims are nonsense, from their marriages being threatened to the idea that their religious freedom and/or freedom of speech is being taken away because other people are getting theirs, to the idea that traditional marriage has always been the same, and on and on. Not a single thing they say even begins to stand up to logical or historical examination.

  14. Jill Pyeatt

    I was disappointed to read an article from Chuck Baldwin that says much of the same. I had hoped he’s evolved past that.

  15. Miguel

    The reality-based opposition is founded on the enumerated right given to individuals (by the 1st Amendment) to observe their religious principles. It does not matter whether people who do not share those beliefs believe in those principles. The people of faith believe the union of marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. They have the right to follow that long-standing principle.

    When an un-enumerated right, such as that in the Obergefell decision, violates an enumerated right, the rule of law is upended, History shows that such decisions open the door for continued violations of enumerated rights. The Dred-Scott decision seemingly validated the South’s view of blacks as property and therefore not worthy of inherent rights. Plessy set the stage for blacks to suffer unconstitutional discrimination for over 50 years, until it was repudiated by Brown v. Board of Education.

    This decision endorses future degradation of religious liberty which will equate to stifling individual freedom of thought and expression for everyone of us. The effect is already being felt by bakers, florists, and others in the wedding industry who are being forced out of business or fined ridiculous amounts.

    Allowing the Constitution to be interpreted without strict adherence to its intent, nullifies the protections we so need to prosper.

    The only way to change the Constitution is with amendments,

  16. paulie

    Your religion doesn’t mean that you have a right to write discrimination into government laws. The Christian Indentity religion opposes so called race mixing, but that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to pass laws against it. There are religions which forbid everything from drinking to dancing to artwork and drawings to eating pork, or beef, or meat of any kind depending on the religion… does it violate their freedom of religion that the regime does not make their religious doctrine into government law to be enforced against everyone regardless of what those other people’s religion is if any?

    Your “religious freedom” argument is not just on thin ice, it’s absolutely ridiculous. In fact it is so obviously ridiculous that I have a hard time believing anyone could seriously believe something that absurd, although I probably should not be surprised.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *