When the U.S. Supreme Court, with the extremist liberal votes of several justices no longer there, fabricated “same-sex marriage” for all of American in 2015, there were warnings about how the ruling would be used against people of faith, those the values of family that have endured for millennia, and more.
All of those warnings were rejected by progressives and other leftists as likely not to exist, or be extremely rare.
Now that those observations have been proven wrong, there is a new movement, a new sentiment, that the precedent fabricated in Obergefell, a precedent that even dissenters on the Supreme Court warned was unrelated to the Constitution, should be overturned.
It’s in a report in the Federalist that experts now confirm, “We can either recognize gay marriage or recognize children’s right to their mother or father. We can’t have both.”
That’s according to Katy Faust, of Them Before Us, an organization that advocates for the right of children to their biological parents.
“Marriage has, throughout our country and nearly every other culture throughout history, been the pathway to secure that right. But as every one of the 38 countries which have legalized gay marriage has learned, when you make husbands and wives optional in marriage, you make mothers and fathers optional in parenthood. The problem is, from the child’s perspective, their own mother and father are never optional. Not in terms of their identity, their development, their safety, or their rights,” she said.
The report in the Federalist warns the “tentacles” of the decision now are “in media, schools and curricula.”
“The decision has left in tatters the single most important institution in society — marriage and family — while ushering in an LGBT indoctrination agenda, annual state-enforced homosexuality, a boost to the rent-a-womb industry, and a burgeoning acceptance of eugenics to service the rent-a-womb industry,” the report warned.
The backlash has been developing for some time already. The report noted support for “gay marriage’ among Republicans has dropped 14% since 2021, when it reached its high.
Faust is going to be part of a panel explicitly calling for the overturn of Obergefell at National Conservatism’s fifth annual conference in September, the report said.
She will be joined by Claremont Institute senior fellow and constitutional lawyer Dr. John Eastman and Hale Institute Director Jeffrey Shafer.
The fight already has been pending at the Supreme Court, where several justices have pointedly noted the precedent should be reviewed. It is Kim Davis — the former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk known best for refusing to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple in the aftermath of Obergefell, who has asked the high court for a resolution.
It was Justice Clarence Thomas in the Dobbs decision that overturned the faulty Roe decision creating a “right” to abortion that didn’t really exist in the Constitution who said Obergefell was endangered, because it was presupposed on the same faulty groundwork, substantive due process, as Roe.
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [right of married persons to obtain contraceptives], Lawrence [right to engage in private, consensual sex acts], and Obergefell,” he wrote.
He noted any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” so the court needs to “correct the error.”
Eastman told the Federalist how Obergefell has damaged American law.
“There is no question that the ability to ‘marry’ someone of the same sex was never any part of the history and traditions of this, or any other, country. Normally, when articulating new unenumerated rights, the Court looks to whether the asserted right was part of the history and traditions of this country.”
The Obergefell activists on the court did no such thing.
Which opens “the door to other novel claims, such as a ‘right’ to polygamous marriages, to polyamory, even bestiality — claims which followed on the court’s decision in fairly short order,” he noted.
Justice Samuel Alito also expressed concern when Obergefell was argued, and in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out the problems.
Anthony Kennedy wrote the Obergefell decision, ignoring the dangerous social experiment he was mandating.
But even he allowed that people of sincere belief and good faith would continue to advocate against gay marriage, and he said they should be allowed to do so.
But the Davis case showed how wrong that has been: “For in adhering to and advocating for her sincerely-held religious view, [Davis] was hounded out of office, prosecuted, and financially ruined. Her First Amendment rights of speech and the free exercise of religion have been trampled beneath the foot of the LGBTQ+ agenda,” Eastman said.
Faust warned, “In the post-Obergefell world, it’s not just marriage that has been redefined. It’s parenthood, infertility, and natural familial relationships. Children are now regarded as objects to be awarded to whichever adult has the money and means to assemble them. But children are not commodities. They are humans. With fundamental natural rights. The first of which is their right to life. But a close second is their right to be known and loved by both mother and father.”
WND previously reported on the Davis case pending before the Supreme Court.
The Syracuse Law Review has explained that the arguments used to overturn Roe also could be used against “same-sex marriage.” Neither abortion nor marriage actually is in the U.S. Constitution, so justices over the years have manufactured reasons to support both “rights.”
The analysis, from several years ago, cited the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe for being based on “substantive due process,” a doctrine adopted by some justices over the years to create “implied fundamental rights.”
“Through various opinions, the Court has recognized a right of personal privacy, which has been extended to other activities such as inter-racial marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing,” the analysis said.
To manufacture same-sex “marriages,” the court relied on “substantive due process” to claim same-sex “marriage” is constitutionally protected.
And the analysis said, “The aftermath of the Dobbs decision spans beyond abortion by calling into question other decisions that were decided on similar grounds to Roe — Obergefell (same-sex marriage), Lawrence (same-sex sexual conduct), and Griswold (contraceptives)—and whether the overturning of Roe presents a similar fate for these decisions.”
The post ‘Growing movement’ takes aim at overturning same-sex-marriage ruling ‘now that its critics have been proven right’ appeared first on WND News Center.
This post originally appeared on WND News Center.
