‘Immense societal havoc’: Campaign to overturn same-sex ‘marriage’ ruling gains steam

The infamous, and faulty, Roe v. Wade decision that created out of essentially nothing a federal “right” to an abortion remained the controlling standard in America for nearly five decades before it was banished to the ashcan of corrupted legal ideologies.

Campaigners are hoping that it doesn’t take that long to get rid of Obergefell, the ruling from just a few years back that even Supreme Court justices admitted was unrelated to anything in the Constitution in its political campaign to promote the LGBT lifestyle choices by legitimizing same-sex “marriage.”

There’s already a legal case that the constitutional experts at Liberty Counsel are suggesting could be the basis for a reversal.

And now the organization MassResistance has confirmed that there are at least six state legislatures that will have the opportunity in coming months to adopt a resolution encouraging the high court to reverse itself.

The organization said it has drafted sample language and resolutions are pending in Idaho, North Dakota, Montana, Michigan, Iowa and Kansas.

For example, MassResistance volunteers in Idaho have been working with numerous lawmakers on pro-family bills in recent years, and now one state representative has offered “to spearhead this effort this year.”

In North Dakota, a lawmaker who previously worked on legislation to ban the body-mutilating “sex change” procedures on children is working on filing an anti-Obergefell resolution.

The organization said its proposed text “calls on the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse its infamous and illegitimate Obergefell ruling. That 2015 decision forced the idea that the U.S. Constitution requires states to allow same-sex ‘marriage.'”

There are discussions already, too, with lawmakers in multiple other states.

“The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was passed by a slim 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices,” MassResistance reported. “It has caused immense societal havoc across the country. States have been forced to ignore their legitimate laws and constitutional amendments regarding marriage. Governments, businesses, and even schoolchildren have been forced to accept same-sex ‘marriage’ – and by extension homosexual behavior – as normal, under pain of punishments, fines, and even imprisonment.”

The problem with that ruling?

“The First Amendment guarantees free speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, and the right to petition government for redress of grievance. By forcing same-sex ‘marriage’ on the country in this way, Obergefell challenged all those rights,” the group reported.

Unlike in 2015, when the Supreme Court was dominated by leftist ideologues, there now is a majority of constitutionalists on the bench, the report said.

“In order to invent a previously unknown constitutional ‘right’ to same-sex marriage, the 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices used a strategy concocted by the LGBT lawyers. They redefined the Fourteenth Amendment to allow them to effectively change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to ‘two people who love each other,'” the group reported.

But the 14th Amendment actually states: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” and does not mention marriage.

The slim 5-person majority simply said homosexual “sexual orientation” is a “class” of people and because of the “due process” and “equal protection” provisions in the Constitution, the justices would be redefining marriage to include same-sex duos.

They also cited “substantive due process,” which is not in the Constitution, a maneuver that was caught by Justice Clarence Thomas, who said that use in Obergefell, like Roe, “is faulty, and a basis for revisiting those cases.”

He said, “We should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

The decision was biased because two justices, Ruth Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, creating the new right already had officiated at same-sex weddings, indicating they had a clear bias in favor.

WND already had reported that Liberty Counsel is working on the case involving former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who was jailed by a federal judge for her religious faith when the Obergefell ruling was announced.

Not only did the judge, David Bunning, adopt the LGBT agenda against Davis, he held trials in which one duo was awarded damages against her.

Now it’s at the appellate level but Liberty Counsel hopes for a higher forum.

It has charged that no jury ever should have gotten the case because plaintiffs offered no “competent” evidence of any damages whatsoever. Then they “proved” damages with no more than “speculation, conjecture, and their own brief testimony.”

And the trial court mistakenly rejected Davis’ contention she was entitled to a reasonable accommodation because of “sincerely held religious beliefs under the First Amendment and Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

Then the real fight appears: “The district court erred by finding that Obergefell created a clearly established constitutional right that superseded Davis’s pre-existing fundamental, textual constitutional rights to religious exercise.”

The appeal charges, “Obergefell should be overturned for the same reasons articulated by the court in Dobbs,” Dobbs being the decision that decimated the Roe v. Wade decision from 1973 that similarly created a federal “right” to abortion.

The appeal charges, “Obergefell’s atextual rights creation was not deeply rooted in the nation’s history or traditions.”

In fact, the appeal explains “Obergefell was not grounded in the nation’s history or traditions, nor could it have been because it was not rooted in any nation’s history or traditions. As Chief Justice Roberts noted, the right that the Obergefell majority created out of whole cloth was inconsistent with ‘the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history.’ Indeed, ‘marriage has existed for millennia and across civilizations [and] [f]or all those millennia, across all those civilizations, marriage referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman.'”

The argument points out that the then-liberal majority on the court “discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.”

The fight, of course, would have to end up at the U.S. Supreme Court for Obergefell to be overturned.

Liberty Counsel explained the background, “In 2015, two same-sex couples who sought marriage licenses from Davis sued because she declined to issue the licenses due to her religious beliefs even though she referred the couples to other clerks who would. Despite Davis receiving an eventual religious accommodation from the state to abstain from granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the litigation against Davis continued. In Ermold v. Davis case, along with a second case in Yates v. Davis, two juries heard the same evidence and the same arguments in both cases. The jury in the Yates case awarded zero damages because the evidence did not support the awarding of any damages. The plaintiffs in that case originally asked for $300,000 in damages.”

But, the report said, “The Ermold jury reached a verdict of $50,000 for each plaintiff and the judge also awarded the plaintiffs an additional $246,000 in attorney’s fees and $14,000 in expenses despite lacking evidence to support the awarding of emotional damages.”

“Kim Davis deserves justice in this case since she was entitled to a religious accommodation from issuing marriage licenses under her name and authority. This case has the potential to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and extend the same religious freedom protections beyond Kentucky to the entire nation,” explained Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver.

Davis had sought a religious accommodation, and was granted one by new Gov. Matt Bevins several months later.

Her state legislature even passed a law permanently granting all clerks an accommodation to opt out of having their signatures on licenses for same-sex duos.

But the court cases had developed in the interim.

WND later reported that the case got a “Told you so,” from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas after the eight-member high court declined to review one issue of the attacks on Davis.

In a statement then, Thomas said Davis “may have been one of the first victims” of the Supreme Court’s “cavalier treatment of religion” when it issued its same-sex marriage ruling, “but she will not be the last.”

Thomas called Davis a “devout Christian” who “found herself faced with a choice between her religious beliefs and her job.”

“Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws,” Thomas wrote. “Moreover, Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”

In fact, since then the state of Colorado twice has launched attacks on Christians who failed to promote the state’s messaging on same-sex unions, a baker and a web designer. And both times it has suffered defeat at the Supreme Court, including once when the justice scolded the state for its hate of Christianity.

Thomas pointed out the high court’s decision on same-sex marriage was found “nowhere” in the 14th Amendment.

“Several members of the court noted that the court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the states had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs,” he said.

“The court, however, bypassed that democratic process. Worse still, though it briefly acknowledged that those with sincerely held religious objections to same-sex marriage are often ‘decent and honorable’ … the court went on to suggest that those beliefs espoused a bigoted worldview…”

Thomas noted that the four justices who didn’t agree with the ruling “predicted that ‘these … assaults on the character of fair-minded people will have an effect, in society and in court.'”

“Those predictions did not take long to become reality,” he wrote, citing the Davis case.