This past Tuesday, the Children and Family Affairs Subcommittee heard HB1473/SB1746, a bill sponsored by Rep. Gino Bulso (R – District 61) and Sen. Janice Bowling (R – District 16) , which would clarify that “Private citizens and organizations are not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment or by the Supreme Court’s purported interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), and no private citizen or organization in this state is required to recognize a marriage or a purported marriage between individuals of the same sex, notwithstanding any other law.”
It’s important that we understand how we got here, as Tennessee has been in this fight for years. The conversation needs to go in two directions, one being the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage from a federal level and two, the moral implications.
We’ll start with the Supreme Court.
In 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the Senate and was ratified by Congress in 1868. At the time, Southern states were still not extending rights to slaves, therefore an amendment was passed ensuring the right to “life, liberty and property, without due process of law” to all those who were born in the United States, including slaves. This amendment also extended these rights to the states, not just the federal government.
This gave the federal courts jurisdiction to take over any state criminal case if the defendant claims that any of their civil rights have been violated.
The Founders originally separated the two, civil rights cases were to be tried in the states and any federal cases were to be tried in the federal courts.
The Fourteenth Amendment blurred those lines and the consequence is a never-ending case load for our federal judicial system.
When our Founders first used the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, they referenced an idea that men and women would have the wisdom and virtue to self-govern, to make decisions that would benefit not only themselves and their families, but future generations as well. To live a life of liberty, means to be free to pursue a moral life. Without that, as John Adams knew, the whole idea of self-government and our Constitution would not succeed.
The Fourteenth Amendment secured marriage between a man and a woman, without explicitly stating it. Moral people getting married continues the social order that, at the time and still should be, was an assumed responsibility.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, declaring that marriage is between man and woman, and giving the rights to the states to accept marriage licenses of same-sex ceremonies from other states.
In 2013, under President Barack Obama, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down by the Supreme Court as they deemed the legal rights given to heterosexual couples should also be given to homosexual couples. The Court ruled that Section 3 violated the Fifth Amendment, which is almost identical to the Fourteenth Amendment, ensuring life, liberty and property without due process.
In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the rest of the Defense of Marriage Act, claiming homosexual marriages were to be protected under the Constitution. The Obergefell vs. Hodges case was brought by several couples against their states, Tennessee being one of them, for not upholding marriage licenses from other states.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor, 5 to 4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy, an appointment by President Ronald Reagan, giving the final opinion. Justice Kennedy stated, “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito voted against the ruling. In Justice Roberts’ dissent, of which Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas signed their names, he stated, “…this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force nor will but merely judgment.’ The Federalist No. 78, p. 465.”
The Supreme Court had no business stepping into this case. Thomas Jefferson predicted this would happen, he warned that the powers given to the Supreme Court would bring power back to Washington rather than where it belonged, in the states.
Onto the moral implications of same sex marriages.
Just as Justice Kennedy said in his opinion, the Obergefell case puts the right to express our identities over the moral fall-out this decision would make. By endorsing homosexual marriage, it strips the rights of children to be raised in a family with a mom and dad. It takes the nuclear family and says it’s no longer crucial to development.
Giving adults this type of equality has directly caused drastic inequalities among children.
According to the American College of Pediatricians, the only leading medical organization fighting the transgender ideology in children, “Psychological theory of child development has always recognized the critical role that mothers play in the healthy development of children. More recent research reveals that when fathers are absent, children suffer as well. Girls without fathers perform more poorly in school, are more likely to be sexually active and become pregnant as teenagers. Boys without fathers have higher rates of delinquency, violence, and aggression.” The AACP also reports that, “This research has revealed that children reared in same-sex households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a same-sex identity.”
Again, for the sake of adult identity, we saw the Supreme Court protect an ideology that does not fit into the moral code our Constitution was created to protect.
There is a national movement growing to overturn the Obergefell case. It was brought back to the Supreme Court in November of last year, but they refused to re-open the discussion.
States like Idaho and North Dakota are passing resolutions urging that this case be overthrown.
Tennessee is codifying into law that private citizens are protected against the misunderstanding of the Courts and the entire woke generation who continues to demand that we support and acknowledge their ideologies.
If you’d like more information on the growing movement to overturn the Obergefell case, check out the Greater Than Campaign, https://greaterthancampaign.com/.
Marriage Equality and the Rise of Private-Citizen Protection Laws
This past Tuesday, the Children and Family Affairs Subcommittee heard HB1473/SB1746, a bill sponsored by Rep. Gino Bulso (R – District 61) and Sen. Janice Bowling (R – District 16) , which would clarify that “Private citizens and organizations are not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment or by the Supreme Court’s purported interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), and no private citizen or organization in this state is required to recognize a marriage or a purported marriage between individuals of the same sex, notwithstanding any other law.”
It’s important that we understand how we got here, as Tennessee has been in this fight for years. The conversation needs to go in two directions, one being the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage from a federal level and two, the moral implications.
We’ll start with the Supreme Court.
In 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the Senate and was ratified by Congress in 1868. At the time, Southern states were still not extending rights to slaves, therefore an amendment was passed ensuring the right to “life, liberty and property, without due process of law” to all those who were born in the United States, including slaves. This amendment also extended these rights to the states, not just the federal government.
This gave the federal courts jurisdiction to take over any state criminal case if the defendant claims that any of their civil rights have been violated.
The Founders originally separated the two, civil rights cases were to be tried in the states and any federal cases were to be tried in the federal courts.
The Fourteenth Amendment blurred those lines and the consequence is a never-ending case load for our federal judicial system.
When our Founders first used the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, they referenced an idea that men and women would have the wisdom and virtue to self-govern, to make decisions that would benefit not only themselves and their families, but future generations as well. To live a life of liberty, means to be free to pursue a moral life. Without that, as John Adams knew, the whole idea of self-government and our Constitution would not succeed.
The Fourteenth Amendment secured marriage between a man and a woman, without explicitly stating it. Moral people getting married continues the social order that, at the time and still should be, was an assumed responsibility.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, declaring that marriage is between man and woman, and giving the rights to the states to accept marriage licenses of same-sex ceremonies from other states.
In 2013, under President Barack Obama, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down by the Supreme Court as they deemed the legal rights given to heterosexual couples should also be given to homosexual couples. The Court ruled that Section 3 violated the Fifth Amendment, which is almost identical to the Fourteenth Amendment, ensuring life, liberty and property without due process.
In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the rest of the Defense of Marriage Act, claiming homosexual marriages were to be protected under the Constitution. The Obergefell vs. Hodges case was brought by several couples against their states, Tennessee being one of them, for not upholding marriage licenses from other states.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor, 5 to 4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy, an appointment by President Ronald Reagan, giving the final opinion. Justice Kennedy stated, “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito voted against the ruling. In Justice Roberts’ dissent, of which Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas signed their names, he stated, “…this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force nor will but merely judgment.’ The Federalist No. 78, p. 465.”
The Supreme Court had no business stepping into this case. Thomas Jefferson predicted this would happen, he warned that the powers given to the Supreme Court would bring power back to Washington rather than where it belonged, in the states.
Onto the moral implications of same sex marriages.
Just as Justice Kennedy said in his opinion, the Obergefell case puts the right to express our identities over the moral fall-out this decision would make. By endorsing homosexual marriage, it strips the rights of children to be raised in a family with a mom and dad. It takes the nuclear family and says it’s no longer crucial to development.
Giving adults this type of equality has directly caused drastic inequalities among children.
According to the American College of Pediatricians, the only leading medical organization fighting the transgender ideology in children, “Psychological theory of child development has always recognized the critical role that mothers play in the healthy development of children. More recent research reveals that when fathers are absent, children suffer as well. Girls without fathers perform more poorly in school, are more likely to be sexually active and become pregnant as teenagers. Boys without fathers have higher rates of delinquency, violence, and aggression.” The AACP also reports that, “This research has revealed that children reared in same-sex households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a same-sex identity.”
Again, for the sake of adult identity, we saw the Supreme Court protect an ideology that does not fit into the moral code our Constitution was created to protect.
There is a national movement growing to overturn the Obergefell case. It was brought back to the Supreme Court in November of last year, but they refused to re-open the discussion.
States like Idaho and North Dakota are passing resolutions urging that this case be overthrown.
Tennessee is codifying into law that private citizens are protected against the misunderstanding of the Courts and the entire woke generation who continues to demand that we support and acknowledge their ideologies.
If you’d like more information on the growing movement to overturn the Obergefell case, check out the Greater Than Campaign, https://greaterthancampaign.com/.
Like this article?
Anne Lowery
Anne Lowery