| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
‘Blame Supremes’ for Clash with 1st Amendment -’I Can’t Think of a Situation Where this Invented Right Should Trump Religious Liberty’
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/06/120425supremecourtz.jpg
Bob Unruh / WND
Do you think the courts have been busy with marriage cases? Wait until you see what happens as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision establishing a right to “same-sex marriage.”
That’s the opinion of several outspoken leaders who have been legally engaged with the issue, from a judge to an attorney and even a sitting state attorney general.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Ken Connelly told WND on Wednesday that the old maxim about conflicting rights applies to the dispute over same-sex marriage: Person A has a right to swing a fist, but that right ends where person B’s nose starts.
“It is unassailable that by redefining marriage, the Supreme Court has set up a clash between the asserted right to same-sex marriage and religious liberty,” he said.
In the ongoing conflict prompted by same-sex couples who demand wedding-related services from Christian business owners, he believes it’s clear which right should prevail.
“I can’t think of a situation where this invented right should trump religious liberty, whether they be a public official or a private individual,” Connelly said.
He anticipates, however, that many courts will not respect First Amendment religious rights, even with additional federal and state laws protecting them.
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who has recused himself from some marriage cases in his state because of his public stance on the issue, pointed, in an interview with WND, to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent last week.
Thomas warned of the wide range of implications for religious liberty as a result of the court’s endorsement of same-sex marriage.
He said it’s inevitable that the two rights will come into conflict.
And Thomas noted that the majority appeared “unmoved” by the looming clash.
Moore said the opinion from “five lawyers” on the court, as Chief Justice John Roberts described the majority, is dangerous because it calls same-sex marriage a fundamental right.
“People have no idea what the future holds with regards to same-sex marriage,” he said.
It was Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who released an opinion that county clerks in his state can choose not to issue licenses to same-sex couples.
He cited the clerks’ religious freedom.
“County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses,” he said. “The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.”
He was immediately blasted by the left. At Think Progress, attorney Neel Lane, who has represented same-sex duos, said Paxton’s advice was “legally deficient,” falsely suggesting citizens’ First Amendment religious rights will be bulldozed.
Nowhere is the marriage conflict more apparent than in Alabama, where traditional marriage long has had strong support. Last winter, U.S. District Judge Callie Granade ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriage. But the state Supreme Court ruled probate judges are not required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Granade has renewed her order that the state abrogate the will of its voters.
Read more at WND:
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/blame-supremes-for-clash-with-1st-amendment/
