GASPARD: Resistance to marriage ruling essential

Posted by on September 3, 2015
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

wedding-rings-natsphotos-600-px-100

Public Officials Are Right to Stand Opposed

In a shameful break with human history and legal precedent, the Supreme Court has radically and tyrannically altered the definition of Marriage as it has been universally acknowledged since the origins of mankind. This usurpation of power demands civil resistance.

Commencing from the foundation of our civilization, marriage has been a sacred religious institution, and no government or court has the power to redefine it without violating the traditional order of society and the hallowed institution of marriage itself, including the religious liberty of those upon whom the new definition is forced.

While government should correctly have no sacred place in marriage, it chose to license the holy institution for the purpose of publicly recording the consecrated bond and lawfully recognizing its existence. Unfortunately, the government quickly moved to regulate and tax marriage – and more recently opted to perform and sanction secular union ceremonies – thus helping to culminate in the current crisis of religious identity we now face.

Truly, it would have been altogether unreasonable for someone to say that the traditional institution of marriage was in any way opposed to the good order of society or religious precedent. This is why there has not been nor could there be an objection from any public official or government body relative to the marriage of one man and one woman.

The revised and expanded definition, however, is most certainly an affront to the historical order of civilization and religious precedent. On this point there can be no argument. This is why the intolerance of those who demand that every person accept the new meaning of marriage is not only outrageous, but is quite frankly the very definition of intolerable.

Clearly, those who hold fast to tradition and their religious values are not the ones who have changed; they are not the ones who are attempting to force a new idea, belief, or explanation for the institution of marriage upon others.  Why then do so many people find it unreasonable for anyone – whether in their public or private capacity – to resist the innovation, to demand due process, or to argue the point of religious freedom?

This point is no less salient for the hundreds and thousands of public officials who accepted a position that at once respected their religious values and principles – especially relative to the institution of marriage – but now purports via judicial fiat something radically new. Sadly, many folks are arguing that these principles apply to private citizens only, and are actually demanding that public officials resign from office. That argument is patently false.

Yet, even aside from the religious liberty perspective, one cannot deny other key issues and facts. In Kentucky, for example, all elected officials and many public employees take an oath to uphold the constitution of that state.  And, while the People have the ability to amend or alter that revered document, the courts do not carry such authority. Specifically, the courts may only render an opinion or ruling relative to the validity of a law in accordance with the Constitution. In other words, the “Law of the Land” as so many folks clamor is embodied only in the language of the Constitution itself, not any ruling whatsoever by the Court.

To be clear then, the Kentucky Constitution states explicitly: Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.

With this in mind, the more provocative question facing the people should not be whether a small number of county clerks are refusing to issue marriage licenses, or asking for their individual religious beliefs to be protected, but rather why the rest of us aren’t suing those county clerks who have been issuing secular union licenses in opposition to their oath.

Frankly, while it’s easy to understand why most public officials would be frightened to resist the ominous force of the Court and subsequent mob of people expecting conformity, it’s also reasonable to believe that most county clerks not only share that same fear, but furthermore don’t recognize the full complement of their rights under the Kentucky and U.S. Constitutions. Therefore, we must boldly encourage those willing to make a stand.

Ultimately, the preservation of our Christian heritage and American culture demands that emboldened patriots – and especially those who are passionate about their religious traditions – stand and be counted in opposition to the completely radical usurpation of power by the supreme Court of the United States. It is not an expression of liberty, nor does it reflect a mature understanding of the convictions which led to our nation’s founding, to accept judicial fiat in place of government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

Religious liberty set aside, the United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. We pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the Republic for which it stands.  We honor the lives of those who fought and died so that we may live free in a nation that acknowledges human rights are derived by God, not man.  We boldly proclaim that government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and not from those who hold offices of authority or preside over courts and tribunals. We cherish a Bill of Rights articulating certain inviolable freedoms and praise a Constitution which enumerates restricted powers to the federal government, and reserves authority over all other matters to the States, or to the People.

In the end, I am reminded of the motto drafted by Benjamin Franklin for the first Great American Seal, which included a symbolic scene from Exodus depicting Moses in a manner to express that he acts by the command of God.  This same motto would later be adopted for the personal seal of Thomas Jefferson: “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

Right now, perhaps the best expression of our obedience to God and rebellion to tyrants is to support the handful of public officials willing to make a stand, and resist the intolerant pressure to renounce our religious values by those who would ridicule us into submission. Let us not be willing to surrender our religious and cultural heritage. Let us stand and fight.


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
The following two tabs change content below.
Brett Gaspard

Brett Gaspard

Chairman at Boone County Republican Party
Brett Gaspard has been a conservative political activist for more than 20 years and presently serves as Chairman of the Boone County Republican Party. He previously served as President of the League of Kentucky Property Owners and was a spokesperson for Kentucky Taxpayers United, the group founded by Dr. Rand Paul in the 1990s.