American Family Association of Michigan
For immediate release: Wed., June 26, 2013
Statement by Gary Glenn, president, American Family Association of Michigan:
Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment remains in place, and marriage in Michigan remains only between one man and one woman, at least until the next lawyer in a black robe decides he has the power to overturn the vote of millions of Michigan citizens, including the two-thirds of black voters and two-thirds of union households who voted in favor of that amendment.
We regret that the court upheld the decision of one openly homosexual judge to overturn the vote of millions of California voters, including 70 percent of black voters in that state, to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.
We also regret the court’s opinion on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted with overwhelming bipartisan majorities and signed into law by President Clinton. Five unelected lawyers purport to overturn the vote of hundreds of the people’s elected representatives in Congress and the White House.
Unless Congress exercises its Constitutional authority to ignore the court’s opinion, Americantaxpayers will be forced to pay for hundreds of millions of dollars in increased federal spending to give spousal-type government benefits to the new category of beneficiaries the court thinks it has the power to force Congress to legally recognize. We hope Congress refuses. If not, this will be yet another instance in which tens of millions ofAmericans are forced to violate their conscience by subsidizing behavior they believe is immoral and wrong.
We also fear the increased threat to the religious liberty and rights of conscienceof individuals and churches who may find themselves joining the ranks of Christian photographers, bakers, florists, bed and breakfast owners, and churches across the country who have already been sued and fined thousands of dollars for refusing as a matter of conscience to service homosexual “weddings.”
We agree with Thomas Jefferson, the first Democratic Party president, who said the Constitution does not give five members of the Supreme Court any more power to decide what is and is not constitutional than the president or Congress, and that allowing the court that power would be a ‘very dangerous doctrine’ and a threat to our liberties.
We agree with Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, who said that if the Supreme Court is ever allowed the power to instantaneously make law in all 50 states, affecting all Americans, we no longer have a government of the people but instead have surrendered our entire government to five unelected lawyers. Thankfully, the court stopped short of an illegitimate attempt to strike down voter-approved marriage amendments in Michigan and 30 other states in one fell swoop.
And we agree with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who said we have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, which he defined as any man-made ruling that is at odds with God’s laws, and that refusing to obey a law that our conscience tells us is unjust is in fact showing the highest respect for law. Again, tens of millions of Americans believe that any ruling that legally recognizes so-called homosexual “marriage” is at odds with the definition of marriage offered by Christ Himself: “For this reason shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife.” And that wasn’t a multiple choice question.
President Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence:
“You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves.” — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820 http://www.seekfind.net/ThomasJefferson.html
President Abraham Lincoln, author of the Emancipation Proclamation, in his first Inaugural Address, March 1861:
“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit… At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail, April 1963:
“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. …I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust…is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. …If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.” http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html