Today is a significant setback for all Americans who believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, democratic self-government, and marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong: It should not have mandated all 50 states to redefine marriage.

This is judicial activism: nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage, and the court imposed its judgment about a policy matter that should be decided by the American people and their elected representatives. The court got marriage and the Constitution wrong today just like they got abortion and the Constitution wrong 42 years ago with Roe v. Wade. Five unelected judges do not have the power to change the truth about marriage or the truth about the Constitution.

The court summarized its ruling in this way—which highlights that they have redefined marriage, substituting their own opinion for that of the citizens:

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.

Manifest to five unelected judges that is. Not to the majority of American citizens who voted to define marriage correctly. As Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in dissent:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

That’s exactly right. When it comes to the majority opinion, the Constitution “had nothing to do with it.”

We must work to restore the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials to make marriage policy that reflects the truth about marriage. We the people must explain what marriage is, why marriage matters, and why redefining marriage is bad for society.

>>> For more on this, see Ryan T. Anderson’s new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

The government is not in the marriage business because it’s a sucker for adult romance. No, marriage isn’t just a private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage acts as a powerful social norm that encourages men and women to commit to each other so they will take responsibility for any children that follow.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Because the court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant set-back to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

Comments (171)

Mark Everly - June 26, 2015

The supreme court rulings of the last few days have illustrated once again and, perhaps, in greater clarity the need for an Article V constitutional convention to limit the power and overreach of the federal government. To put the problem

Lydia Williams - June 26, 2015

They ruled against the constitution…the next group to seek recognition of marriage are the polygamists…

Mark Everly - June 26, 2015

The supreme court decisions of the last few days illustrate once again and more clearly than ever, the need for an Article V Constitutional Convention to limit the power of the Federal Government. To put the problem succinctly, Washington is broken and has repeatedly refused to fix itself. The states and the people need to intervene to correct this growing problem.

Adrienne - June 26, 2015

No! It was out and out tyranny.

Tina Borges - June 26, 2015

My heart is breaking and I know the Holy Spirit is grieving over this decision and how our country has turned against God and truth. We are living in a world with no absolutes, no absolute right or wrong. Without this, there is no law or accountability. I believe in God’s work as

Christine Davidson - June 26, 2015

After all our founders went through to create this great land and constitution, we must not give up. A political course to take would be to impeach Roberts and the two female judges who refused to recuse themselves. But realistically, America will not be reclaimed in Washington. It’s too corrupt. Appreciate Heritage training of elected officials, but they have to have the character to stand for what is right. We sent them there by the electoral process, but they betrayed us. We must work in our homes, and educate with blogs, like mine, epicworld.net. We have God on our side, and we must fight, not just roll over and surrender. It’s time to offend the adversary.

Alan Chandler - June 26, 2015

to put it very bluntly, this is an absolute travesty and those who voted for the redefinition of marriage should immediately be impeached and remobved from the bench!

Charles E. Millard - June 26, 2015

The Great God in Heaven must surely be shaking His head at the decision just passed by 5 UNELECTED judges of the Supreme Court. This places them ABOVE Him! Our beloved nation now stands in His absolute judgment.

Jerry Metcalf - June 26, 2015

No it did not.

Julia Wilson - June 26, 2015

NO! They are legislating from the bench and disregarding peoples’ votes at the state level. Democracy is NOT being practiced in our fed govt at this time!!!!

Larry DeBerry - June 26, 2015

No. The government does not have the right to legislate marriage. I am extremely disappointed and shocked about this decision. The states can make decisions on this. I believe we should have the will of the people on this subject be known by a popular vote in each state not a ruling by the Supreme Court.

Susan J Reed - June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex “marriage” today is outrageous. Trying to wipe out millennia of knowledge on marriage is a flagrant frontal attack on all Godly men and women whose faith is in the only Lord God Almighty who created man and woman to multiply upon the earth. What God has declared an “abomination” doesn’t change because of five justices’ misguided decision. God will not be silent on this declaration from the Supreme Court. Be prepared for what will be severe consequences for this nation in the future.

Diane evertsen - June 26, 2015

The Supremes seem to be getting entirely too political and are not looking at legalities, but redefining laws. Time to look at how to reinforce their roles.

Tom Reth - June 26, 2015

The US Supreme Court over stepped is constitutional mandate.

Paul Stahl - June 26, 2015

SCOTUS just erased Article 10 of the Bill of Rights. I guess we might as well reduce government costs by doing away with Congress if SCOTUS continues to ursurp the Consistution and Legistave law

Charles Miller - June 26, 2015

Not even the Court pretends to have followed the Constitution. What these five lawyers did was not merely to ignore the Law of the Land, but to completely gut it and trash the carcass. As Mr. Anderson says, the Constitution had nothing to do with this.

Alan Ernst - June 26, 2015

We need to stop judicial activism. How can we legally do it? Or is it time for civil disobedience?

Alan Allison - June 26, 2015

No! and its time that we stop appointing Judges (Supreme and Federal for life.

Ruth Ann Osman - June 26, 2015

I am angry that the Supreme Court ran right over my constitutional rights and my state’s rights. I am angry that 2 justices did not recuse themselves from the process. Same sex marriage is not protected in our constitution. The people have a right to vote on these issues not be railroaded into compliance.

Debbie Pettyjohn - June 26, 2015

No they ruled based on what Washington wanted not the American people. They are a disgrace to the bench for not standing on our constitution and the will of the people.

ray rogers - June 26, 2015

no!

Alan Allison - June 26, 2015

Definitely NO !! It’s time we quit appointing Judges for life. The people should have a vote in who is to judge them. It’s time oour courts quit writing laws.

Pat - June 26, 2015

No, I do not think the Supreme Court ruled according to the Xonstitution

John Titus - June 26, 2015

I am so disappointed in this President and the Supreme Court, each of which has had no problem overstepping its authority – and completely disregarding “government by and for the people

Kurt - June 26, 2015

I think today’s decision by the Supreme Court to allow gay marriage truly makes God very disappointed in us as a humanity. To allow such devious behavior as a norm makes our country a very sinful and abhorrent culture. I believe that the 5 SCOTUS judges who ruled in favor of gay marriage today thereby ignoring our Constitution makes a mockery of our current Christian nation!

cecile sammons - June 26, 2015

I feel we are losing our country. It is becoming something other than the democracy it began as. I don’t even trust the news to be truthful anymore. The supreme court is over stepping their authority! I feel it’s just a matter of time before businesses and churches are forced to comply or go out of business. We are witnessing the destruction of a once great nation!

Patricia - June 26, 2015

No, they did not follow the Constitution and I don’t believe the states should cave into our SCOUTS for their lack of respect for the majority of the people who have voted otherwise.

They need to be held accountable for their miss handeling of this matter

John Titus - June 26, 2015

The ongoing and blatant disregard for the Constitution and the Rule of Law has now come to a head. I can honestly say that as of this day forward, civil disobedience is now a real possibility, or the tyrannical control will deepen.

Richard L. Kranker - June 26, 2015

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should,therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. There meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” Thomas Jefferson
Clearly the SCOTUS ignored the first sentence and honored the second

John H Ross - June 26, 2015

This decision by SCOTUS is another step in Obama’s promise to fundamentally change our life here in the USA, one that could ignite the internal war that I am convinced he is hopeful will happen. The ramifications of this decision are immense. Full scale persicution

Linda May - June 26, 2015

my heart is breaking for America. people just don’t realize what they are doing to themselves and it makes me very sad. I’m afraid Satan has really gotten a foothold and I just have to pray for the world.

Dr. Donna Bergman - June 26, 2015

Justice Clarence Thomas articulated it when he explained that Liberty has “long been understood as individual freedom from government action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitilement.”

Lillian - June 26, 2015

I expected Roberts to rewrite Obamacare again. But same sex marriage! It seems to me the US common law has up to now been in sync with God’s law. I feel today we just severed that.

Lillian - June 26, 2015

I expected Roberts to rewrite Obamacare again. But same sex marriage! It seems to me that up to now, the US common law was in sync with God’s law. Today, 5 men severed that. Does this mean we are no longer a Christian/Judea nation?

James Schultz - June 26, 2015

This is where we need to understand that the state or federation of states is a godless institution currently run by an elite brokerage of media elected power obsesed

Dr. Donna Bergman - June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court has stepped over the line when it dictates marriage. To those of us who believe God’s word, marriage is a sacred act. When the federal government dictates the perimeters of a sacred act they have violated our first amendment rights.
In addition, the people of the state, according to the constitution, are the ones responsible for laws of marriage. The constitution never reserved that for the federal government. Today the Supreme Court violated God’s law and our Constitution

Thomas Hudson - June 26, 2015

We must protect freedom of religion and right of conscience. No one is free without these. Do whatever it takes to shore up these freedoms.

Russell Wilson - June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court proved with this decision that they don’t understand their role. They are not to make law or tell lawmakers what they meant when they passed a law. They are to uphold the Constitution and they have failed.

Marriage has always been a State issue. The States say what is required for a marriage and issue a license. It is ludicrous for the Supreme Court to try and dictate to the State who they must marry and how they define Marriage,

As a Minister who officiates marriages I have always said “By the Power invested in me by the State of ……….” I and many others are not obligated to the Federal Government or required to follow this errorous

Lee Estabrook - June 26, 2015

Dear Sir: After years of oblerving the arguements over the definition of marrage, I have decidided I must go back to the concept of States Rights and the First Amendment. Specifically:
The legal side of marrage

Lee Estabrook - June 26, 2015

After observing the marriage srguements for many years

Philip Gallanders - June 26, 2015

SCOTT’S acted today in an extra-legal manner. They ignored the Constitution and Roberts so stated.

Patricia Baker - June 26, 2015

The decision by the Supreme Court Justices does not surprise me, but it is very disturbing that they rewrote the law to their desires. This just shows how far the American people have gotten away from God. I’m sick & tired of the minorities getting their way. I pray that we will see a great revival in the United States of people confessing their sins and asking God to forgive of their sins and they start living for God and not Satan. It’s time Congress start doing the job they were elected to do and stop being a bunch of wimps.

G. Stuart Adams - June 26, 2015

This ruling is blatantly wrong.Perhaps the time has come to change the tenure of federal

Lee Estabrook - June 26, 2015

should be sub divided into two (2) Civil and Speratural

jerry thomas - June 26, 2015

Hence forth the Roberts Court should be know as “the feel good court”.

Lee Estabrook - June 26, 2015

The Civil would issue licenses, oversee

G. Stuart Adams - June 26, 2015

This appears to me to be a blatantly wrong decision, which seems to be part of a pattern. I would favor a change in the tenure of the judiciary to allow for a fixed term of years, after which re-confirmation hearings are automatic. This would permit a review of decisions and rtheir adherence to the Constitution

Albert Koenig - June 26, 2015

The Supremes are destroying this country by disregarding law and utilizing their own feelings. Chief Justice cannot have it both ways. He is politically motivated rather interpret the law. Elect a true conserative

Phil McConathy - June 26, 2015

I am astonished that SCOTUS bent over backward and totally ignored the meaning of the word state. Justice Roberts is without a doubt the worst cief justice

Lee Estabrook - June 26, 2015

The Civil would issue licenses, oversee will and power of attorney, and other civil commitments. The Spiritual side would conduct religious rites of marriage, if desired

Philip Gallanders - June 26, 2015

The question you pose, is did SCOTUS act to uphold and defend

Colin Comer - June 26, 2015

No, the Supreme Court did not act Constitutionally in either the Obamacare or marriage ruling. This is a rogue court that has clearly and repeatedly overstepped its bounds. Obamacare was passed without the consent of the people or the House, and there is no justification for establishing a tax for not purchasing something. The Court has no authority to redefine our traditions, customs and institutions.
This court rules based on personal preference and opinion, not law. This is beyond their authority. Congress has a responsibility to counter these rulings, and the states have a responsibility to counter from a state’s rights perspective. After all, it has now been established that states are not bound to federal law, as in the case of “legalized marijuana”. Our standards, legal and otherwise, are being destroyed. Human / animal marriage is next, and you can bet on it. Once we have nullified the definition, there is nothing to stop it from being anything anyone wants it to be.
I no longer recognize America, and I feel no allegiance to what now passes for our country. This is not the country I was raised to believe in. The 4th of July now only inspires disappointment and depression. It is no longer something to celebrate.

Carol S Harris - June 26, 2015

since the Supreme Court has sure a distane

Lee Estabrook - June 26, 2015

This would pemit individual States to regulate the civil side of marriage ((and divorce) as the States’ laws permit. The Church ((all) would decide if they wish to bless and concentrate the union.. I understand this has been done for many years in Europe and other parts of the world. It should work in the USA and permit placing our attention on murder, crime in general and especially protecting from our foes (foreign and domestic). Sincerely, Lee (please put my comments together, your web site was difficult to use) L

Marion A. Spencer - June 26, 2015

It really doesn’t matter what the SCOTUS has done with gay marriage, the “perception” among the majority of Americans is Marriage

Marion A. Spencer - June 26, 2015

Marriage is between 1 Man and 1 Woman and that can’t be changed by any man made law.

Beth - June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court today is not acting in the best interests for America but were influenced by liberals, the media and the 1%of gays. God ordained marriage and punshined

James Swelgin - June 26, 2015

It is clear to me that the Roberts court will probably be as activist as the Warren court.
It is sadly ironic that both Chief Justices were nominated by Republicans.
It as a sad day for Christians that thus govt. is

Beth - June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court today did not act in the best interest of America but were influenced by their liberals educations, the media and the 1% of loud gays. God ordained marriage and the Supreme Court can not rule it out. I pray God forgives and will still bless America because of the Christians who believe in HIS laws. Four Justices were correct, one was probably black mailed and four are stupid liberals.

Carolyn Goodin - June 26, 2015

I no longer have any faith in the Supreme Court. They are partisan and always will be. Life term appointments should be repealed.

Michael Rhyner - June 26, 2015

Why would the judges even be allowed to render an opinion, if it runs counter to the Constitution?

Sheryl - June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court is no longer our court. They have abdicated their authority. They have trashed the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence which states, “We, the People, of the United States of America…” This Country was to be run by ‘We, the People” not by judges who stomp all over the rule of law and in fact, make law.

John Spear - June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court absolutely got it wrong. The decision, with its tortured and twisted logic (mostly lack thereof), may have forever ruined an institution that has flourished and survived over hundreds of years to best care for and nurture children.
Gone now will be the pretext that religious freedom will not be affected. Hardly! Organized religion–starting with the Catholic Church–will be in the crosshairs very soon and persecution will begin, even in spite of reassurances from Justice Kennedy. The slippery slope just became significantly steeper.

Patricia Nalitz - June 26, 2015

I.m outraged with the activism on
this court. Justice Roberts may have
voted against this, but totally got it wrong
on Obamacare. Many states already
voted to support marriage as one man an one women and the courts just go over
the wishes of the people and change it.
When will people in this country say ENOUGH!!!

Gary Clemente - June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court ruling is an abomination. A crushing attack on the rule of law, democracy and a civil society

Gerry Tischler - June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court made a terrible ruling today

Caleb Cavileer - June 26, 2015

I disagree with the courts decidtion

Caleb Cavileer - June 26, 2015

I do not agree with the courts decision.

Gerald Dominick - June 26, 2015

This decision is an “out and out” travesty. I would like for someone (other than those Supreme Court Justices) to please explain how ANYONE can over rule GOD? I think that it is obvious that God is going to have to enlarge Hell based on how our Government thinks they are god.

Caleb Cavileer - June 26, 2015

The courts are wrong, God made man & woman for a purpose. Some day we willall have to

Caleb Cavileer - June 26, 2015

The court was wrong. Some day these judges will have to face a higher authority and then they will be judged for their mistakes. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes

Eileen Corcoran - June 26, 2015

Now we see not a single branch of our govt’s checks and balance

Ruth Torrey - June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court absolutely got it wrong. Even Justice Roberts admitted that such a right is not in the constitution. We will need to keep the pressure on our congressmen and women to ensure that our freedoms of religion and speech are preserved and that people are not punished for holding Biblical beliefs.

M L McGee - June 26, 2015

Our current ‘political correct’ Court do not understand the meaning of our Constitution. The Republic was founded on Godly

Hal - June 26, 2015

This is just another assault on our constitution, liberty, and American exceptionalism. The sad part is that the Supreme Court is already lost and has been completely discredited, even with a “conservative” majority. The next president will either delay this trend or, in the case of a Democrat, ensure a liberal majority and tyranny for years to come.

kenton pies - June 26, 2015

According to Mike Huckabee and you the Court can’t make laws, they interpret them. Of course the gay & liberal population have jumped the gun”

John Talbott - June 26, 2015

Six Justices turned SCOTUS into a political and farcical arena for social engineering.
SSerious consideration should be taken by Congress

Anne Pym McDonald - June 26, 2015

Marriage is by definition between one man and one woman. Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible in Leviticus 20:13, 18:22, I Cor 6: 9-11, Gal. 5:19-22, I Tim 1:9-10, Romans 1:26-7, Jude 1:7, I Cor 6:9, for examples

Gayle Boden - June 26, 2015

I believe that it is time for “the tree of liberty to be refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants”-but mostly tyrants. Jefferson spoke about taking up arms.There may be no other way.

Donald Geiman - June 26, 2015

Since the last election America has changed direction and is heading down the broad road that leads to dis-struction of every institution

Don Geiman - June 26, 2015

Since the last election America has changed direction and is heading down the broad road to distruction.

Lynn Pauley - June 26, 2015

SCOTUS is wrong it is time for a Convention of the States. We need term limits on Supreme Court, Senate, and Congress, with no provision for them to lobby

Lynn Pauley - June 26, 2015

SCOTUS is wrong. It is time for a Convention of the States to amend the US Constitution to limit the terms of SCOTUS. Senators, Congress

a haas - June 26, 2015

“The greatest danger to our American
Freedoms is a government that ignores
The Constitution” Thomas Jefferson

Joseph Wing - June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court got it wrong again,this time at the expense of the Constitution and Christians in the US. What is the procedure to recall

Evelyn L Hartman - June 26, 2015

I firmly believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Children benefit from having two loving adults –a father and a mother in the home!

w

Lawrence Richardson - June 26, 2015

I agree with Franklin Graham. The so-called Supreme Court did’t define Marriage and can’t redefine it

Joseph Wing - June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court got it wrong again today, at the expense of the Constitution and Christians in the US. How do we recall these antimoralists. Satan is at work here and is out to destroy the family. The Supreme Court is aiding and abetting.

Roger Naylor - June 27, 2015

The Supreme court had NO RIGHT to even take this case. IT IS A STATE ISSUE! The Court has now said it is acceptable to be a pervert and the law now says “It is a right under the Constitution”! It is Perversion to be Homosexual! Show me one instance in nature where two males in a species are sucking each other off! or penetrating each other in the anal opening!! If it doesn’t happen in nature, it’s not natural, thus, a perversion of nature!!!
Can a man now marry a goat? a calf? If it is a “Right” to marry, why not?
This should be decided by the people of each state

Beverly Jean Stefan - June 27, 2015

No. The majority judges are wrong in this decision. We voted twice, in CA, tht a m

Jarhead - June 27, 2015

NO….they listen to lies not the Constitution or Common Sense…..just like the Roe Vs. Wade Decision and obamaCARE

Ralph & Mary Kay Duerden - June 27, 2015

Absolutely NOT!!!!

Jack Beluska - June 27, 2015

Another brilliant example how flawed is the government of the USA. When five out of nine judges ORDER us what to believe

john thompson - June 27, 2015

Since the Supreme court isn’t interpeting
the constitution as it reads verbatum and
actually interpeting it to please this Admin-
istrationSaying

JD McKenzie - June 27, 2015

A truly sad decision about marriage. Now it is even more important to protect religious freedoms.

john thompson - June 27, 2015

The Supreme Court has interpeted the Con
-stitution ,not as it reads,verbatum

john thompson - June 27, 2015

our children will accept same sex marrige
as normal & thats nor what the Constitution

john thompson - June 27, 2015

This nation was founded for religiuos Free-
dom.Same sex marrige is sinfull & our Con-
stitution reads marrige is only recognize as
between a man & a woman.It appears the
Supreme Court is trying to change theCon
-stitution,not interpeting as it reads.Gay or
same sex marrige people shouldn’t raise
cheildren

Mary A Cole - June 27, 2015

Those who voted to change the definition of marriage were pushing an agenda and ignoring the Constitution. They were usurping the powers of the legislative branch and the voters.

Abigail Nobel - June 27, 2015

Congress should forbid enforcement funding for this decision. States should draws a line in the sand to protect conscience rights for clerks, judges, and pastors.

Paula Abbott - June 27, 2015

No! They do not represent me as unelected judges. It is out of order to legislate from the bench. I will continue to seek representation to my religious right of conscience.

Diane Halliwell - June 27, 2015

I am sickened about the Court’s decision on marriage. For those of us who embrace the Bible as our authority and final Word, this has been unbearable . . . watching the President on one end, pushing the Hollywood agenda, and the courts on the other end “ruling” over “We the People” with these types of decisions. You and I both know that this is NOT where it will end. Gay couples will now go to pastors to force the issue; to claim bigotry; and churches will start having their tax-exempt status stripped. They want nothing less than for the whole country to be subjected to their agenda. In that way, they are no better than radical Islam, which claims that all must believe in Islam or be killed. They are not doing any killing, but they sure are trying to impose their beliefs on all. Those who resist are squarely in their crosshairs, and they will “face the consequences” of their “archaic” beliefs”.

When did the Word of God become archaic . . . let’s see. 1947’s court made the “separation of church and state”, a comment by Jefferson in a letter meant to restrain government!

Teri - June 27, 2015

There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits same sex marriage, and in fact the 14th amendment does support these individuals for being equal right. What the first amendment does support is that individuals whose religious beliefs

Teri - June 27, 2015

What the first amendment does support, is that individuals whose religious beliefs are against same sex marriage

Nina Pierce - June 27, 2015

the supreme court has now become a political group instead of a judicial group they are helping to destroy our nation and I am just sick of it

Kay Waterman - June 27, 2015

I don’t believe the Court acted according to the Constitution. It has opened a vile and aggressive Pandora’s box. I was watching a gay friend’s posts on Facebook. Yes, the gays are ecstatic with the Court’s ruling. But they won’t stop there! They are obsessed with silencing all opposition. I believe the activists will approach Evangelical Christian pastors to marry them, and when they refuse, they will sue. We need laws that will protect Pastors and religious institutions from the loud-mouthed and aggressive minority.

Pamela Wright - June 27, 2015

The court overstepped their bounds, just as our President has overstepped his bounds countless times since taking office. The Constitution means nothing to them.

R.A. Smith - June 27, 2015

Absurd and outrageous pandering to a vocal minority of self absorbed people with no thought to the obvious long term destructive effect on the family, our Nation’s building block. The five pompous asses in the Supreme Court need to go. They are routinely betraying their oath of office.

Elwood A - June 27, 2015

There should be an amendment stating the definition of marriage. Seems like the Supreme Court decisions depends on who is there

Fran Falk - June 27, 2015

I am sickened by thisdecision.

Elwood A - June 27, 2015

at the time. I guess now Apples=Oranges Me and my best buddy r not gay but we should get married because he needs benefits?
Civil Unions should cover gays just like Real Marriage so they can take care of each other.

Sally Pletzer - June 27, 2015

God loves all his creation but he condemns the sins of man. Marriage is and always will be between one man and one woman. If they want they can call it a civil union and work to gain benefits.

Victress I Jenkins - June 27, 2015

I fell like we, the American people, have been slapped in the face by these irratic rulings

Victress I Jenkins - June 27, 2015

We have been slapped in the face but that’s a battle we will always be engaged in to restore our constitution and the First Amendment. Both are truly unconstitutional, just as Roe vs. Wade was and will always be. Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty.

David LaVergne - June 27, 2015

SCOTUS used politics nstead of the Constitution

Lawrence Wical - June 27, 2015

It is a sad day that the Supreme Court cannot perform what it is suppose to perform, the proper interpretation of the Constitution which has gone by the wayside, complements of the President.

John Mitchell - June 27, 2015

Thomas Jefferson stated that his greatest fear for the country and the Constitution was the Supreme Court to make law. I agree and many recent decisions confirm it.

Sherri Gustine - June 27, 2015

The Supreme Court overstepped their bounds by changing the definition of marriage.

Anthony J. Brienza - June 27, 2015

No SVOUS

Robert J Sonnelitter - June 27, 2015

I do not think that the Supreme Court should have heard this case at all since the Constitution is silent about the subject. The ruling ignores the meaning that marrage does not

Howard Woods - June 27, 2015

Now, thanks to SCOTUS, a priest or minister who refuses to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony will be jailed for a hate crime.

Robert J Sonnelitter - June 27, 2015

Ignore the above as it is incomplete and was sent before I could correct it..
The Supreme Court should not have heard the case at all since the Constitution is silent about the subject. The ruling ignores the historical meaning of marriage in almost all cultures. The practical effect may be to allow same sex couples to file joint tax returns thereby reducing federal and state tax collections. More important is that this ruling could encourage the adoption of children by same sex couples. In which case the children are harmed by the fact that having a mother (who is female) and a father (who is male) is more beneficial to a child’s emotional development.

Judy Brown - June 27, 2015

Once again the constitution has been ignored. Regardless of what the members of the Supreme Court may think of themselves – they have no right to change what God says about marriage.

Philip Fidel - June 27, 2015

No the Supreme Court sided with the minority in allowing Same Sex Marriage. They went contrary to biblical definition of marriage and again snubbed the 50 million or so people who voted to maintain the definition of marriage. Perhaps it is time to make the Court’s members be accountable for their decisions. There term shoulc not be a life long term

Philip Fidel - June 27, 2015

The Court has changed history once again. 50 plus million people voted to keep the definition of marriage as One man and One woman. The court even ignored the Bible and its clear definition of marriage.

It is time that we place “term limits” of sorts on the court. The Senate needs to be more strict on whom they endorse to the court and of course do so obejectivl

Chan Bailey - June 27, 2015

The US Sopreme Court skipped the 1st and 10th amendments then

Chan Bailey - June 27, 2015

The Court skipped the 1st and 10th amendments and stretched the 14th to the breaking point. This was the worst case of judi

Chan Bailey - June 27, 2015

The Court skipped the 1st and 10th amendments and stretched the 14th to the breaking point. This is the worst case of progressive judicial activism in history.

Janice Bennett - June 27, 2015

Five Supreme Court Justices completely ignored the Constitution in their vote to bow to popular opinion on the question of “do I have the right to my every passionate wish?” It’s not even a majority opinion in this country. But it is perhaps the loudest. They chose to ignore their job, i.e. applying the Constitution to an issue, and didn’t even vote by asking “whose well being are we going to set as the first priority.” They could have put children first. But they didn’t. Scientific research has shown time after time the damaging outcomes suffered by families without fathers. So they just eliminated the father role. They just said that the difference between a father and a mother doesn’t matter.
I grieve for the country I used to know.

j - June 27, 2015

The Supreme Court has opened a “pandora’s box”. Where will this stop. Are we now being forced to do things we feel is against our religion

j - June 27, 2015

. Will man now have the freedom to marry animals legally?

William Church - June 27, 2015

The frenzy that has accompanied this decision in favor of gay marriage is only starting. George Takai said yesterday that “it is only the beginning”, “religious freedom is next”. Soon, if we don’t defend Christianity immediately, quoting from the Bible could be labeled “hate speech” because it hurts the feelings of gays. Further, it could cause the IRS to remove the tax exempt status of any church which espouses the Biblical view of marriage for the same reason.

William L. Saylor - June 27, 2015

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Seems to me that the Supreme Court (Roberts) didn’t recall this Amendment or chose to ignore it. Judicial overreach – same as Obama with overreach.

Peter Taussig - June 27, 2015

Our Supreme Court has abandoned and demanded that all of us also abandon the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.

As for the Obamacare ruling, see:

http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon0626af.html

Michael Nagle - June 27, 2015

The SCOTUS did NOT rule correctly on the issue of marraige.

Larry Southworth - June 27, 2015

In my opinion, the Supreme Court has assumed the position of legislators as opposed to

Antonia Pemberton - June 27, 2015

The supreme court had no business ruling in a case that had been settled by God through natural law at the biginning of

Marjorie Taylor - June 27, 2015

Those five judges totally ignored the Constitution and imposed their will on our nation. That is tyranny, and they should be impeached!

Ronald Stelzer - June 27, 2015

5 people handpicked for their liberal activist beliefs does not change God’s design or mind, and the farther we go slouching toward gomorrah

Luis - June 27, 2015

Judicial activism has now judicial tyranny.

Sally Vose - June 27, 2015

The Supreme Court way over-stepped its Constitutional authority and tried to destroy the First Amendment. I think it is time to consider an amendment to put term limits on those justices who do not follow the Constitution.

De Ette - June 27, 2015

No

Donna Johnson - June 27, 2015

No, I don’t believe the SCOTUS acted according to the constitution on any of the ruling this week. I intend to pray for a spiritual revival in this country and repentance

Pennhy - June 27, 2015

The Supreme Court is out of control like the rest of Washington! Heaven help us. Pray, pray, pray.

Helene Honeywell - June 27, 2015

Absolutely not. It is not their job to rewrite the law or base any decision on their personal beliefs but instead to interpret what the law says and in accordance with
the Constitution

Donald Mccormick - June 27, 2015

NO! ! !
they are ruling according tot heir OWN CONSENCE or thwart they think they should do. I almost think they should just FLIP A COIN and they might be right some of the timwe

Matt Coan - June 27, 2015

The Supreme Court overstepped their bounds by legislating from the bench! Congress needs to act on behalf of the citizens who elected them!

roger Hanseling - June 27, 2015

We have 9 justices in black robes making laws instead of deciding if laws are correct. 3 have their heads on straight the other six mainly 5 are just rubberstamp liberals for Obama and the liberals in government. Their are a lot of socalled

roger Hanseling - June 27, 2015

No 5 sometimes six of the justices don’t seem to know what their role is or don’t care. They’re trying to make laws instead of deciding the constitutionality of laws

Mrs. William R> Smith - June 27, 2015

The Supreme Court has violated our constitutional, moral, and religious rights and should be held accountable! This attack on our faith, families and our churches,

Anne Lucas - June 28, 2015

NO! NO! NO!

Veda Connolly - June 28, 2015

No the Judical did not

Veda Connolly - June 28, 2015

no the judicial did NOT follow the Constitution or the intent of our Founders. This is a State’s Rights question and has no business being a Supreme Court question. I believe it’s an individual quandry

Judith Kay taber - June 28, 2015

I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman

Gary Blunt - June 28, 2015

There is no enumerated power in the Constitution

Henry C. Holder - June 28, 2015

No, however they made interpretation on matters that would allow them to not deal with homosecuality and twist their interprretation to what was not being argued. Simply, they ignored the Constitution in order to bless gay marriages.

William Snedden Sr - June 28, 2015

The Federal government does not belong in the marriage business or in anyone’s bedroom or choice of sex partners.

Marriage is a committment of two people

Gordon - June 28, 2015

The Supreme Court is not a maker of the laws, it’s supposed to uphold the laws that already exist. They are now destroying the Constitution of the Republic, and bowing to a minority of less than 2% of the country to make the 98% of the country obey the less than 2% who are defying the God who created them to obey the moral laws He has setup for all humans. This country was founded on God’s laws of morality. Man is now attempting to throw out those moral laws. Now the country is going to receive judgements from the Lord

Helen f Love - June 28, 2015

It is a sad time, asa I fear the rule of law has ended

Florence Murphy - June 28, 2015

This ruling changes nothing for those who believe that God was the author of marriagein Genesis. Marriage is a Sacrament that a civil authority cannot provide. If peoplewant a civil joining of two same sex people do not call it marriage. It is a civl union according to the law bur not marriage!

Peggy Frick - June 28, 2015

The Supreme Court did not act according to the Constitution as marriage is not referred to in the Constitution. According to the Constitution, the Federal Government is only to be concerned with four areas with the States having control over everything else. I am not sure that the justices have read the Constitution. I also wonder what Obama has on Roberts–pictures maybe? There certainly is something.

Frank Williams - June 28, 2015

It is a bad time for all Americans! The President and Supreme Court have pretty much trashed the consitution and the Republican leaders in Congress are afraid to fight it in fear of losing their cushy jbs!

Steve - June 29, 2015

The court is out of control and it’s ruling must not be followed by the states. Two of the justices need to be impeached for not following legal procedure by reclusing

Thomas - June 29, 2015

We NEED A Retirement Age for Senile Supreme Court Judges.

Philip M. Bowie - June 29, 2015

The supreme court decision is not constitutional. We must continue to work to make sure the truth about marriage is place.

Jerry McAvoy - June 29, 2015

A matter this important should not depend on the vote of one individual. I believe the number of justices should be increased. Age limits imposed and a thourough

William Koontz - June 29, 2015

The laws written in the books have no meaning, save the meanings

Bill Coates - June 30, 2015

The Supreme Court has invented a new ‘right’. This new right conflicts with long-existing rights which the federal government is obliged to protect – religious practice, free speech, and assembly (First Amendment). It will be used to force others not to tolerate, but to celebrate things that conflict with conscience. Even the military respects the rights of conscientious objectors. Forcing another to render service against their will is also a violation of the 13th Amendment (involuntary servitude). It appears that legislative clarification is needed to establish a proper ‘hierarchy of rights’.

I hope this will be covered by the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), sponsored by Senator Mike Lee and Representative Raúl Labrador.

Pauline Blanka - July 2, 2015

No! They made the wrong decision. It S/B that children have the best possible environment to grow up in. That means a grown up mom and dad who are married to each other and are willing and able to bring up children in the way that they should go.

Janice lewis - July 2, 2015

My heart is also broken and my love of God is weeping for I am sure he is weeping too, as he sees our great nation being torn apart piece by piece and no one seems to be able to stop the madness. I pray that we as part of this great organization can get our message out to all these lost souls.

emily jordan - July 9, 2015

I’m not a constitutional expert, but to me it was never a matter of whether the constitution supports homosexual marriage or not – it’s just wrong and a terrible injustice to the children who will
now be adopted into families where they will never have the chance to have a mother and a father!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.