This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Liberty Counsel, under the direction of Mat Staver, has been in the middle of the court fight over same-sex marriage since the beginning.
The legal team has represented Kim Davis since she was a county clerk and declined to issue marriage licenses to same-sex duos when the Supreme Court abruptly created that status in America years ago, getting sued for remaining faithful to her faith.
And that case could be the one that goes to the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling, which came by one vote and was described as untethered to the Constitution, Liberty Counsel outlines in an analysis of the situation since Congress adopted a federal statute for same-sex marriage.
Joe Biden was expected to sign it right away, as abortion, same-sex ideologies, and transgenderism have been three of the main points of his term.
It was the “Respect for Marriage Act” that was adopted Thursday.
“This action is a strategic blunder by advocates of same-sex marriage. Rather than a victory, the Respect for Marriage Act will make easier the argument to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 5-4 opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges regarding same-sex marriage,” Liberty Counsel explained.
First, three of the liberal judges then on the court, Kennedy, Breyer, and Ginsburg, are gone. Only Justices Sotomayor and Kagan supported the new ideology, and remain.
It was Chief Justice John Roberts who back then issued a stinging dissent. And Justices Thomas and Alito also dissented. Newcomers are Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, all considered on the conservative side of the scale, and a liberal Jackson.
“Until the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, the biggest hurdle to overturning Obergefell was not on the law but on policy. Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, has no support for the Constitution. Like Roe, Obergefell was ‘egregiously wrong from the start.’ As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, ‘The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent,'” the analysis said.
Now, the analysis predicts, the Supreme Court eventually will return “the matter of marriage” to the states to decide state-by-state, just as abortion now is supervised by state legislatures, not the Supreme Court.
“States will then be free to return to their laws prior to 2015 that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” it said.
Liberty Counsel explained the Davis case “may be a vehicle to overturn Obergefell. This case is working its way back to the Supreme Court where one of the arguments will be that Obergefell was wrongly decided. Justices Thomas and Alito have already invited future challenges to the 2015 Obergefell marriage case since the decision was never constitutional.”
Thomas and Alito already had warned that Obergefell’s decision created a collision with religious liberty.
Thomas wrote, “In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several members of the court noted that the court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of 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.”
In fact, Democrats in Congress refused a plan to embed such protections for religion in their bill that was sent to Biden.
He continued, “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 anti-discrimination laws. It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law. But it is quite another when the court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.”
Davis actually was one of the first victims of the Obergefell ruling. She claimed protection for her religious rights not to have to endorse same-sex marriage, but a leftist federal judge, David Bunning, jailed her for not immediately advocating for the new status, even though her state law remained in a muddle, unchanged even though the high court’s opinion had been issued.
Thomas said the Supreme Court “has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ‘ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'”
And Roberts said, “The court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every state to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none of their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their views. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.”
He said the ruling was “an act of will, not legal judgment” and it has “no basis in the Constitution .”
“As a result, the court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”
Staver explained, “Today’s vote on the so-called Respect for Marriage Act has paved the way for the Supreme Court to overturn the 2015 5-4 opinion in Obergefell v. Hodge and thus return marriage back to the states. These lawmakers have unwittingly created the perfect scenario to fix the mess the court originally created.”