ANOTHER STATE REBELS AGAINST SAME-SEX ‘MARRIAGE’ MANDATE

by BSU

In the latest move that suggests that a bare five-lawyer, same-sex “marriage” endorsing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court is far out of step with many Americans, lawmakers in South Carolina have proposed the South Carolina Natural Marriage Defense Act, which would withdraw recognition of homosexual duos. [Read full article]

The unconstitutional decision of the Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage has done what the minority in the decision warned, namely, “that it would create constitutional conflicts.” While the Constitution doesn’t mention marriage, it does say anything not mentioned in the document should be left to the states and the people. Even the Supreme Court’s own opinion in the Defense of Marriage Act case said that states have exclusive power over marriage in their jurisdiction.

What changed in the two years since that decision? The pressure to accept the homosexual agenda has grown tremendously during that time. We are headed down the slippery slope of losing states’ rights altogether, and even The Tenth Amendment Center has rightly said “the bill would lose in court because of the present weakness of states’ rights,” recognizing the lack of willpower on the state level to fight the Supreme Court, regardless of its lawlessness. Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin has shown, however, that the state still has power to act on behalf of marriage and in defense of the First Amendment. The simple act of removing clerks’ names from marriage licenses eliminated the conflict Kim Davis faced over her religious objection to signing a license for same-sex marriage.

If the South Carolina state legislators will stand strong in defense of traditional marriage, perhaps we’ll see more states taking steps to do the same. The Founders were strong believers in states’ rights and understood that to maintain individual liberty, there must be safeguards against centralized power. In Federalist Paper #45, they said “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” Until we return to our founding principles, we will continue to face conflicts with an overreaching, overpowering federal government.

  SUPPORT FREEDOM