HARDCORE PROOF: Scotus Gay Marriage Ruling UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

USING SCOTUS’ OWN WORDS FROM JUST TWO YEARS ago on the DOMA ruling!
The same five justices who gave us Gay Marriage now – said then … it would be “unconstitutional” for the SCOTUS to rule on marriage definition!  

From Carl’s guest on Freedom Friday, Mike Bates – Owner of 1330 WEBY – Gulf Coast Talk Radio

Following are the transcribed words of Mike Bates:

SCOTUS GAY MARRIAGE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY the words of SCOTUS ITSELF!

Absent a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman, I knew that the Supreme Court would one day force recognition of same-sex marriage on all 50 states. But I thought it would be done legally through the Full Faith & Credit Clause (see video at https://www.facebook.com/1330WEBY/videos/vb.111573712204626/648105398551452/?type=3&theater ).

Instead SCOTUS did it illegally via the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment was intended to force states to recognize the citizenship rights of freed slaves. It was not designed to grant automatic citizenship to any children born of illegal immigrants who happen to be on U.S. soil when the baby is born or to mandate same sex marriages. In the case of birthright citizenship, at least that’s in the plain text despite it not being the intention. But same sex marriage was conjured up out of thin air by five justices who failed to properly exercise their duty to interpret the Constitution. Instead, they amended it. Since the right to a same sex marriage is not a Constitutional Right, the federal government has no authority under the 14th Amendment to force states to perform or recognize such unions.

My objection to same-sex marriage is not “hate”. It is not “prejudice” or “bigotry” or “discrimination”. Those are inflammatory words used by the Left to discredit and dismiss those whose opinions differ from theirs. It is an effective, albeit extremely unfair, abuse of language for political gain. I wholeheartedly agreed with the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision (which overturned anti-sodomy laws). If a homosexual wants to be a homosexual, it’s a private matter that is not the government’s concern.

But same sex marriage is different. Marriage is a recognition by the state that a special contractual arrangement exists between people. Until this millennium, that has ALWAYS been the exclusive domain of opposite sexes. Never before in human history has same-sex marriage been recognized by law until The Netherlands did so in 2001. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is both a social and legal atrocity. And the ruling of the Supreme Court forcing same-sex marriage down our throats is an outrage of both judicial abuse of power and the Court’s total disregard for the Constitution of the United States.

Whatever popular support for same-sex marriage may exist is CONSTITUTIONALLY IRRELEVANT. The role of the judiciary is not to do what may be widely supported. That is the role of the legislature (within Constitutional limitations). The role of the appellate courts is to determine the Constitutionality of laws. It is NOT to make law. Yet that is exactly what the Supreme Court just did in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Forcing states to perform same-sex marriage is a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment and an anathema to our Constitutional system of government. Is that MY opinion? Yes. But it is an opinion based in fact. Do you know who else had that opinion? THE FIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHOSE RULING JUST WENT AGAINST THAT OPINION!

In U.S. v. Windsor (the 2013 SCOTUS decision that overturned the Defense of Marriage Act), the five majority justices EXPLICITLY STATED THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO
JURISDICTION OVER MARRIAGE LAWS. Here are a few excerpts from that opinion:

“Regulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders.”

“The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the protection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.”

“The states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce . . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”

“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.” “Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”

“The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”

“Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State.”

“Federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.”

Those are not my words. Those are the words of the same five Supreme Court justices that just ignored their own words when they ruled opposite that position by deciding that same-sex marriage was a fundamental Constitutional right of all Americans, and that the federal courts could force all states to recognize that as a right. They, of course, are very, very wrong.

So, what’s next in our slide down the slippery slope into the cultural cesspool as we fundamentally transform the United States of America? Can I simultaneously have more than one wife? Can I marry my sister? Can I marry my brother? Can I marry my mom? Can I marry my son? These may seem like absurd questions. But it was not long ago that another absurd question was ” Can a man marry a man?”

I don’t want to say, “I told you so.” BUT, “I TOLD YOU SO.”

I predicted back in 1996 that DOMA was insufficient protection of traditional marriage. At that time, I said that only a constitutional amendment would preserve marriage as the union between one man and one woman, because I knew that one day the federal courts would strike down DOMA.

Listen to this brief excerpt from a 2008 interview I did with presidential candidate John McCain where I predicted today’s court ruling, and that dumb ass RINO McCain said it would never happen.

Mike Bates