The sacred institution of marriage has taken another serious blow from yet another radical member of the federal judiciary. In the latest episode of judicial tyranny, U.S. District Judge Robert Shelb
y has mandated that the State of Utah redefine marriage to
include same-sex unions.
Judge Shelby's decree declares that the provision in Utah's state constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is unconstitutional. Shelby claims that Utah's marriage laws violate the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Shelby's decision contradicts the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windso
r, in which the High Court ruled that the "the definition and regulation of marriage...has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States."
In the Windso
r case, the Supreme Court cited the history of marriage laws in America, saying: "The states, at the time of 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."
Yet Supreme Court precedent didn't keep another lawless federal judge like Robert Shelby from imposing his own personal political agenda. Shelby proclaimed that homosexuals have a "fundamental right" under the U.S. Constitution to "marry," despite the fact that the subject of marriage is nowhere contained in the document. In fully fictional fashion, Shelby pronounced
that homosexual "marriage" is "deeply rooted in the nation's history."
Shelby's 53-page "gay rights" manifesto came just 16 days after hearings on the matter. As further evidence of his dictatorial objectives, Shelby refused to grant a customary stay of his momentous decision until the case could be appealed to a higher court. As further evidence of the bankrupt nature of the federal judiciary, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to place a hold on Shelby's arbitrary decision until they could hear an appeal of his ruling.
Shelby's assertion that the equal protection provisions of the federal constitution mandate so-called same-sex "marriage" is nothing short of ludicrous. Not a single
member of Congress who voted for the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment understood that language to encompass the right of homosexuals to pretend to be "married." Not a single member of the legislatures of the many states who ratified the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment ever intended their votes to endorse the corruption and perversion of the institution of marriage.
Utah Governor Gary Herbert denounced the judicial edict from Judge Shelby, who was appointed by President Barack Obama. "The ruling from Judge Shelby has created a chaotic situation in our state. I am very disappointed that an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah. I am working to determine the best course to defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah." Voters
in Utah adopted their marriage amendment in 2004 with support of 66 percent of Utah citizens.
Homosexual activists hope the Shelby decision will lead to a nationwide redefinition of marriage. "If this judge is right, all 50 states must legalize same-sex 'marriage'," says Clifford Rosky, a law professor at the University of Utah and himself a homosexual rights advocate. "The logic of this decision is not limited to Utah in any way."
Brian Brown, President of the National Organization of Marriage, called the ruling "a travesty of justice." "This trend of vetoing the voters from the bench must be
stopped. It is clear that the people of America need to reclaim their sovereignty and amend the U.S. Constitution to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
Bryan Babione, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, urged Utah state officials to vigorously defend the constitutional prerogatives of Utah residents. "The government's purpose for recognizing marriage is to bring together a man and a a woman to be a father and mother to any children their union may produce."
"The ruling in this case ignores that time-tested understanding of marriage and replaces it with the recently conceived notion that marriage means special
recognition for close relationships. A court should not impose this shortsighted, novel view of marriage on the people of Utah."
In related news, the New Mexico Supreme Court has mandate the redefinition of marriage in that state to include same-gender unions. New Mexico's High Court ruled that state laws "limiting" marriage to the union of one man and one woman are not "substantially related to an important government interest." New Mexico does not have a marriage amendment in their state constitution.
"The unfortunate effects this will have on society are sweeping," says Voices for Values, a New Mexico
pro-family organization. "The court chose to issue a mandate and tear down an important pillar of our society--the traditional family. This opens new opportunities for the family to be undermined and our society's threads to be ravaged."
Jim Campbell, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, says that the New Mexico Supreme Court decision abrogates the democratic process. "The court has constitutionalized a view of marriage previously unknown in the Land of Enchantment and never chosen by the people."