Array
Liberty Counsel, under the direction of Mat Staver, has been in the middle of the court fight over same-sex marriage since the beginning.
The legal team has represented Kim Davis since she was a county clerk and declined to issue marriage licenses to same-sex duos when the Supreme Court abruptly created that status in America years ago, getting sued for remaining faithful to her faith.
And that case could be the one that goes to the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling, which came by one vote and was described as untethered to the Constitution, Liberty Counsel outlines in an analysis of the situation since Congress adopted a federal statute for same-sex marriage.
Joe Biden was expected to sign it right away, as abortion, same-sex ideologies and transgenderism have been three of the main points of his term.
It was the «Respect for Marriage Act» that was adopted Thursday.
«This action is a strategic blunder by advocates of same-sex marriage. Rather than a victory, the Respect for Marriage Act will make easier the argument to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 5-4 opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges regarding same-sex marriage,» Liberty Counsel explained.
First, three of the liberal judges then on the court, Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg, are gone. Only Justices Sotomayor and Kagan supported the new ideology, and remain.
WND is now on Trump’s Truth Social! Follow us @WNDNews
It was Chief Justice John Roberts who back then issued a stinging dissent. And Justices Thomas and Alito also dissented. Newcomers are Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, all considered on the conservative side of the scale, and a liberal Jackson.
«Until the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, the biggest hurdle to overturning Obergefell was not on the law but on policy. Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, has no support in the Constitution. Like Roe, Obergefell was ‘egregiously wrong from the start.’ As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, ‘The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent,'» the analysis said.
Now, the analysis predicts, the Supreme Court eventually will return «the matter of marriage» to the states to decide state-by-state, just as abortion now is supervised by state legislatures, not the Supreme Court.
