Ronald R. Cherry
Supreme Court vs. The Constitution
By Ronald R. Cherry
July 13, 2015

In this lengthy essay the recent Obergefell vs. Hodges Supreme Court decision is examined and rebutted in detail. There is repetition in the Supreme Court opinion and therefore some repetition in the essay. Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer decided that homosexuals possess a right to marriage which is protected by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Supreme Court: "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. The petitioners [plaintiffs] in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex."

Marriage has been defined and recognized as the heterosexual union of one man and one woman by every civilization since ancient times, by the Law of Nature, and likewise in the Bible by the Law of Nature's God. Since marriage, as a differentiated form of human liberty, is a human right secured by the U.S. Constitution, we rationally conclude that the U.S. Constitution protects the equal right of homosexuals to marry someone from the opposite sex. Had the Supreme Court honored our rational and sacred past, they would have decided nothing new, because American homosexuals have always possessed a right to marriage. The natural right to marriage ensures the homosexual's Natural and Divine right to do as they please with themselves in choosing a mate of the opposite sex. An individual's natural right to liberty also ensures the right of homosexuals to do as they please with themselves in choosing a mate of the same sex in homosexual union. American homosexuals are free to go either way, but they are not free to do as they please with American heterosexual Christians, within a rightfully lawful realm, as traditional Christians define and express their own identity.

When marriage remains defined as the heterosexual union of one man and one woman the term "homosexual marriage" instantly becomes an oxymoron – a concept which contradicts its self – an Orwellian internal contradiction – an irrational idea where two contradictory beliefs are held in one's mind simultaneously requiring the insanity of accepting them both. Insanity (or psychosis) is a state where reality (truth) and fantasy (non-truth or lies) are mixed together in one's mind to the point where they cannot be separated – truth and lies become blurred to the point where the truth is no longer recognized. Under the traditional, rational and holy definition of marriage the term "homosexual marriage" would mean the heterosexual union of homosexuals – an entity which does not and cannot exist in reality – an Orwellian contradiction – the term is an example of Orwellian Doublespeak. In order for the Supreme Court to find a right for two men or two women to marry they would first have to re-define the word marriage to include two men or two women, a power not given to any branch of Federal Government in our Constitution – including the Supreme Court – an irrational and un-holy power not given to any human court or government since such a perversion of government power violates the law of Nature and Nature's God.

Supreme Court: "The centrality of marriage to the human condition makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for millennia and across civilizations... It is fair and necessary to say these references were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex. That history is the beginning of these cases. The respondents [defendants] say it should be the end as well. To them, it would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held – and continues to be held – in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world. The petitioners acknowledge this history but contend that these cases cannot end there."

It is presumptuous to the point of hubris that any group of people, including the petitioners and Supreme Court Justices, might dare to believe they are masters of human history, and are thereby in a position to overturn the Law of Nature and Nature's God by re-defining the meaning of marriage. Like little gods, these people have positioned themselves far above us, our parents and grandparents, and all our ancient ancestors, and far above Jesus Christ who also defined marriage as one man united to one woman.

Supreme Court: "Were their intent to demean the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners' claims would be of a different order. But that is neither their purpose nor their submission. To the contrary, it is the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the petitioners' contentions. This, they say, is their whole point. Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect – and need – for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment."

The petitioners do not respect or revere the reality of marriage, if that were the case they would not seek to re-define the meaning of the word "marriage" against the tide of human history, against Biblical teaching, and against the will of America's heterosexual majority. If the petitioners respected and revered the reality of marriage they would seek equality only on the grounds of equal liberty – their natural right to an equality of those privileges and responsibilities, other than adoption of children, present in both heterosexual marriage and homosexual union, the latter being the only real path to homosexual commitment.

Supreme Court: "The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. That institution – even as confined to opposite-sex relations – has evolved over time. For example, marriage was once viewed as an arrangement by the couple's parents based on political, religious, and financial concerns; but by the time of the Nation's founding it was understood to be a voluntary contract between a man and a woman... Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married man and woman were treated by the State as a single, male-dominated legal entity... As women gained legal, political, and property rights, and as society began to understand that women have their own equal dignity, the law of coverture was abandoned... Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations..."

These changes in marriage customs and law did not re-define the meaning of the word "marriage." The laws of coverture were appropriately overturned in the United States by State legislatures, because government power regarding marriage is not given to the Federal Government in our Constitution, so that power is reserved to the States (except for power to re-define marriage) by the 10th Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

It is true that so-called "new dimensions of freedom" may seem apparent to new generations. That was true under Communism in the Soviet Union and under Fascism in Nazi Germany – where new dimensions of freedom for the so-called Proletariat Class and the so-called Arian Race trumped and destroyed the remaining people's Natural God-given freedom. "New dimensions of freedom" in those so-called progressive societies also trumped their people's Natural and Divine freedom to keep and bear arms in self-defense, and then finally, in the name of freedom, their unalienable right to life was violated. Once the State is empowered to destroy freedom, in the name of new dimensions of freedom, it is only a matter of time before coercion, violence and murder will be exercised by the tyrannical State.

"And if liberty is to be attributable of the real man and not of the scarecrow invented by the individualistic [Classical] Liberalism, then Fascism is for liberty. It is the only kind of liberty that is serious – the liberty of the State [to discover new dimensions of freedom for its self]." Benito Mussolini

Supreme Court: "Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity... Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable."

Despite recognition by some psychiatrists and others, homosexual acts violate the Law of Nature as understood by the great majority of people since ancient times, and such acts also violate the Biblical Law of Nature's God. It is agreed that homosexual acts should not be outlawed, because the Law of Nature and Nature's God also includes the freedom to do as you please with yourself, as long as that freedom does not violate the life, freedom or property of others.

Supreme Court: "The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution's central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed."

The generation that wrote our Bill of Rights – our Founding Fathers – understood the nature of human freedom in all of its dimensions far better than this Supreme Court, and the same is true for the generation that wrote the 14th Amendment. Thomas Jefferson wrote our Declaration of Independence, inspiring the American People, and explaining to them the rightness of our struggle against the freedom-destroying unequal divine right of Kings, replacing that tyrannical idea with freedom-enabling equal Divine Rights of Individuals. It was Thomas Jefferson, for the first time in human history, who properly defined the meaning of human freedom, connecting it with the Natural God-given equal human rights of all individuals – to their life, liberty and the fruit of their labor in creative pursuit of happiness.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action [including free speech, free exercise of a peaceful Christian religion, and private consensual heterosexuality] according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others [to their free speech, their free exercise of a peaceful religion, and their private consensual homosexuality]." Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson's explanation of rightful human liberty is unique, original and applies universally to freedom in all of its dimensions, and illustrates his genius in the realm of political and moral thought, casting a shadow over this generation's Supreme Court and it's Marxist re-definition of freedom, which requires the use of excessive government power to unnaturally force equal outcomes among the people, such as an unnatural forced relationship equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, instead of, without force, allowing for their inherent inequality. Thomas Jefferson's definition of rightful human liberty, to the consternation of our Supreme Court, also points to a rational understanding of human tyranny, which is in fact a perversion of human liberty. Tyranny is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the inferior rights of others – such as the inferior right of American heterosexual majority to legally define the meaning of the word marriage. As stated in our Declaration of Independence, in order for government power to be just it must derive through the consent of the governed, i.e.: via consent of the majority, as long as the majority respects the equal natural rights of the minority to their life, liberty and the fruit of their labor in creative pursuit of happiness.

"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men." Thomas Jefferson

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal [natural] rights [along with the majority], which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." Thomas Jefferson

Like Thomas Jefferson, and unlike this Supreme Court, Abraham Lincoln understood the meaning of human liberty – and human tyranny.

"With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name – liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny." Abraham Lincoln

American Christians possess a Natural God-given right, and under our 1st Amendment a legal right – freedom of speech – to call homosexual unions by a name other than "marriage," and to teach Biblical sexual morality in their Churches and schools. Under our 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights American Christians possess the freedom to do as they please with the product of their labor, i.e.: the freedom to peacefully operate their private businesses in a way that does not violate Christian morality – the freedom to refuse a business contract which violates the free exercise of their Christian religion – as handed to them from ages past.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." First Amendment, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects [their businesses], against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." Fourth Amendment, Bill of rights, U.S. Constitution

With this Supreme Court decision Presidential executive orders or regulations can now be used to enforce homosexual marriage, and other so-called homosexual rights, in a way that violates the 1st and 4th amendments, just as some State laws do now. The Supreme Court has opened the door for a tyrannical nullification of the 1st and 4th amendments of the U.S. Constitution. This Supreme Court decision is not the law of the land because it opens the door for violation of the highest secular law of our land – the American Bill of Rights. No man, and no court, possesses a right to destroy our Natural, God-given, unalienable human rights.

"No man [or court of men] has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal [natural] rights of another..." Thomas Jefferson

Supreme Court: "Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia... which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held marriage is 'one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men'.... It cannot be denied that this Court's cases describing the right to marry presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners. The Court, like many institutions, has made assumptions defined by the world and time of which it is a part... This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry... A first premise of the Court's relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy."

Of course people naturally possess a right to marriage, because the act of marriage is simply a differentiated form of human liberty – unobstructed action according to their will. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, already possess a natural right to marry (someone of the opposite sex – real marriage) but they do not have a natural right to re-define the meaning of the word marriage (to mean same sex) against the will of the heterosexual majority. Homosexuals retain the natural right of free association with other homosexuals in a relationship which contains the same characteristics as married couples, except for adoption of children, but the homosexual relationship is not equivalent to heterosexual marriage and therefore requires another name such as homosexual or gay union.

Supreme Court: "A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education... Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children's best interests... Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples."

In 2005 The American Psychological Association falsely claimed that science supports the notion that children raised in homosexual households are indistinguishable from children raised in normal families – a claim which Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer have accepted and advocated. However, a 2012 review of the literature cited by the APA revealed that those studies were lacking in scientific credibility.

"In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting. This brief included the assertion: ''Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents''... The concluding summary later claims, ''Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth''... [N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are needed – many of them... a closer examination leads to the conclusion that strong, generalized assertions, including those made by the APA Brief, were not empirically warranted. As noted by Shiller (2007) in American Psychologist, ''the line between science and advocacy appears blurred.''

The argument here is that homosexual couples, after exercising a non-existent right to redefine the meaning of the word "marriage" against the law of Nature, and against the will of the heterosexual majority, must possess a right to marriage which is supposedly helpful to children. In fact the best way to help children is to raise them, whenever possible, in a normal heterosexual family with their biological father and mother – in the presence of a real marriage – a matter of common sense for most of us – but also a matter of real science. The best way to avoid the stigma, humiliation and harm of being raised in a homosexual family is for children to be raised in a normal heterosexual family, a natural right possessed by all children which trumps the so-called right of homosexual adoption. A scientific study published in 2012, conducted by the Department of Sociology and Population Research Center, University of Texas, observed the truth of it when comparing children raised by homosexual or heterosexual parents.

"NFSS also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults – on multiple counts and across a variety of domains – when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day."

Supreme Court: "States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decision making authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers' compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules."

All of these benefits, except for adoption of children, can and should be present for homosexual couples via the institution of homosexual unions.

Supreme Court: "Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives. As the State itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects... The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest."

Homosexual unions are in fact naturally unequal to heterosexual marriage in the most fundamental way. Homosexual unions are not, by their genetic makeup, anatomy and biological function, able to engage in heterosexual intercourse, and thus procreate the human species, and thus create a natural family with mother, father and children. Homosexual couples already possess the same fundamental right to marry, just like heterosexuals, where marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. They also possess a natural right to homosexual union (not marriage) which ensures their fundamental right to liberty – the freedom to associate as a homosexual couple – with all the same benefits as marriage except for adoption of children.

Supreme Court: "The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes en- acted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right."

As stated in our Declaration of Independence, unalienable human rights, including the right to marriage which is an expression of human liberty, come from the Creator of the Universe. Many people today, including five on the Supreme Court, possess a flawed and misinformed understanding of how our Constitutional imperatives define liberty, which remains urgent in our era and in all eras. The liberty of homosexuals to marry is not disparaged here as long as the meaning of the word remains as it has during the entire history of man – as per the law of Nature and Nature's God. Homosexuals have always possessed a Natural right to marry someone of the opposite sex – their liberty has not been denied. The liberty of homosexuals, and the State, to re-define the meaning of the word "marriage" against the will of the American heterosexual majority disparages and stigmatizes the majority as though they are of lesser value than the small homosexual minority, and denies them of their natural right, as a majority, to legally define the meaning of the word "marriage." The liberty here of the homosexual minority, and the State, is wrongful liberty because it violates the natural right of the majority.

Supreme Court: "The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment's guarantee of the equal protection of the laws."

The 14th amendment requires equal protection of the laws, and since those laws are in place to equally protect our unalienable God-given human rights – to life, liberty and the fruit of our labor in creative pursuit of happiness – it follows that the 14th Amendment is a legal requirement for equality of those basic human rights among all people. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are of equal value as individuals in the eyes of their Creator, having been made in His image, thus by equal value they naturally possess equal God-given (Declarational) human rights, secured by equal protection of the law. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal in the value of their persons, but the value of the homosexual relationship is, by Nature, unequal to that of heterosexual marriage. It is therefore irrational and immoral to force these two unequal relationships into equality by re-defining the word marriage (to include the homosexual relationship) against majority will.

There is no need to invoke the 14th amendment in the first place because homosexuals already possess an equal right to marriage in the United States – marriage as defined by the American heterosexual majority – marriage as defined in the Bible – marriage as defined by our near and ancient ancestors. Secondly, one cannot rightfully or rationally have the destruction of the some of the people's real human rights – those in our Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights – in the name of equal rights. Any new so-called human right which requires the undermining of real human rights cannot in fact be a human right, because real human rights do not destroy human rights. The 14th amendment cannot be rightfully twisted to abridge rightful human liberty because application of the 14th amendment is limited by the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. By wrongfully invoking the 14th amendment to protect homosexuals equal right to actual marriage (which already existed), by perverting the meaning of the 14th Amendment by wrongfully invoking it to shoehorn an unequal relationship into an equality that does not exist (an act of Cultural Marxism), and by re-defining the meaning of a single word in their 14th amendment argument, the Supreme Court has violated the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Through Orwellian stealth the Supreme Court has nullified Constitutional Law.

Supreme Court: "In Loving the Court invalidated a prohibition on interracial marriage under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. The Court first declared the prohibition invalid because of its unequal treatment of interracial couples... 'To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.'"

Unlike the current Supreme Court, the Loving decision represented a just and rational Supreme Court decision where a natural equal right to real marriage was upheld. Marriage is the union of one man to one woman regardless of skin color. In Loving the Supreme Court did not attempt, in Orwellian fashion, to irrationally and immorally re-define the meaning of the word marriage.

Supreme Court: "It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry. These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples."

The challenged laws do not burden the liberty of same-sex couples, nor do they abridge any fundamental human right, or the real American concept of equality – which is an equality of Natural unalienable (Declarational) God-given human rights – not a Marxist attempt to unnaturally force equality onto "classes" of people or, in this case, interpersonal relationships which are inherently unequal. There was no harm to, disrespect for, or subordination of homosexuals in the challenged laws because American homosexuals have had a fundamental right – freedom – to real marriage all along. The heterosexual relationship in marriage is not equal to the homosexual relationship by the same or any other name. On the other hand, the equal freedom of homosexuals to form a legally recognized and secured intimate relationship, and to possess the same privileges inherent in heterosexual marriage, except for adoption, is a just goal, and should be vigorously defended by the Supreme Court and all other branches of government. That would represent the real central precept of American equality – a just and rational application of the 14th amendment in defense of equal natural rights, including equal liberty.

Supreme Court: "Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights... Indeed, it is most often through democracy that liberty is preserved and protected in our lives. But as Schuette also said, "[t]he freedom secured by the Constitution consists, in one of its essential dimensions, of the right of the individual not to be injured by the unlawful exercise of governmental power."... Thus, when the rights of persons are violated, "the Constitution requires redress by the courts."

What happens when the American people's fundamental rights are abridged, and they are thereby injured by an unlawful exercise of government power by the Supreme Court? What happens if the Legislative or Executive branches of our Federal Government do not overrule a Supreme Court decision which nullifies the Constitution? In such a situation, and today that is the situation, the quickest remedy for the people of the United States is to appeal to their State governments to nullify the Supreme Court in its nullification of the Constitution. In our present day the Constitution requires redress by the States.

"The course & scope of the reasoning [1798 Virginia Resolution] requires that by the rightful authority to interpose [to nullify] in the cases & for the purposes referred to, was meant, not the authority of the States singly & separately, but their authority as the parties to the Constitution., the authority which, in fact, made the Constitution; the authority which being paramount to the Constitution was paramount to the authorities constituted by it, to the Judiciary as well as the other authorities [Congress and President]. The resolution derives the asserted right of interposition [nullification] for arresting the progress of usurpations by the Federal Government from the fact that its powers were limited to the grant made by the States [U.S. Constitution]... The mode of their interposition [nullification], in extraordinary cases, is left by the Resolution to the parties [States] the event of usurpations of power not remediable under the forms and by the means provided by the Constitution [Article V Amendment]... It is sometimes asked in what mode the States could interpose [nullify] in their collective character as parties to the Constitution against usurped power. It was not necessary for the object & reasoning of the resolutions & report that the mode should be pointed out. It was sufficient to shew that the authority to interpose [nullify] existed, and was a resort beyond that of the Supreme Court of the U. S. or any authority derived from the Constitution [Congress and President]." James Madison – 1834 Notes on Nullification

The most definitive remedy for the people of the United States is to appeal to their State governments to amend the Constitution in such a way that will defend the people's Natural, God-given, unalienable human rights to life, liberty and the fruit of their labor in pursuit of happiness in defiance of the Supreme Court.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states..." Article V, U.S. Constitution

Supreme Court: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."

The question remains: Will Christian churches be prosecuted under this Supreme Court opinion for refusing to marry homosexual couples? The Supreme Court says here that Christian churches may continue to advocate against homosexual marriage, but that is not the same as refusing the marriage ceremony, so it is possible that the Minister or Priest may preach a sermon which contains Bible passages pointing out the immorality of homosexual acts, and later be forced to conduct a homosexual "marriage" against their will, or find the police locking the church doors under court order. Since the free exercise of a peaceful religion means more than just sermons and teaching, this Supreme Court decision opens the door for tyrannical violation of the 1st and 4th Amendments by other branches of government, Federal or State. Violation of the 1st and 4th Amendments is violation of our Bill of Rights, a violation of Constitutional Law, an act of political war, and thus treason against the American people.

© Ronald R. Cherry


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Ronald R. Cherry

Ronald R. Cherry, MD, is a board-certified specialist in lung disease who is in the full-time practice of medicine in Sweetwater, Tennessee... (more)


Receive future articles by Ronald R. Cherry: Click here

More by this author


Stephen Stone
'The fervent prayer of the righteous'

Siena Hoefling
Protect the Children: Update with VIDEO

Stephen Stone
Flashback: Dems' fake claim that Trump and Utah congressional hopeful Burgess Owens want 'renewed nuclear testing' blows up when examined

Cherie Zaslawsky
America’s Hitlerian Henchmen

Michael Bresciani
Buck up world - Your last and worst dictator is approaching quickly

Jerry Newcombe
The Marxist move to cancel Jefferson

Selwyn Duke
The “equality” blues: Feminists cry foul when boys’ netball team wins girls’ tournament

Steve A. Stone
Taking today’s pulse

Jeff Lukens
A cyber-security option for the 2022 elections

Stone Washington
Revisiting the exciting travels of Marco Polo—850 years later, Part II

Judie Brown
Eucharistic madness

Pete Riehm
They really don’t care what we think!

R.T. Neary
Mark A. Milley – another Biden-era disgrace

Curtis Dahlgren
Critical Race "Theory" = "Divide and conquer"

Rev. Mark H. Creech
Since prophecy predicts things will get worse, why engage the culture?
  More columns


Click for full cartoon
More cartoons

RSS feeds



Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Bob MacGuffie & Antony Stark
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites