Statement by Michigan’s American Family Association: The Supreme Court and its bigoted decision against traditional marriage

Pic of Gary Glenn who heads up Michigan's American Family Association.

From: AFA-Michigan <>
To: AFA-Michigan E-News <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:54 PM
Subject: News — AFA-Michigan on Supreme Court rulings
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 Justice Antonin Scalia that the Supreme Court has “no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation.”
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:
“The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.” — Letter to Mrs. John Adams, Nov. 1804
“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
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.”
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.”


Note – The following link provides contact information to our nation’s top political personalities.They are the elected leaders:

The Complete List of Email Addresses and Fax Numbers for the U.S. Congress and Governors –

Also –

U.S. Constitution Online –


Posted by:

Pastor emeritus Nathan M. Bickel

Note:  Pics and / or videos found on the web.

4 thoughts on “Statement by Michigan’s American Family Association: The Supreme Court and its bigoted decision against traditional marriage

  1. craftymadre says:

    I’m a devout Christian. I’ve been church school teacher; a lay pastoral care giver; and am currently on the Lay Leadership Committee, the Christian Formation and Education Committee, and help lead our church’s youth service. My partner and I have a talented, funny, caring son who is being raised in the church, to love and praise God.

    My partner and I happen to be of the same gender. These things are not, however, incompatible. I think that using the Bible to condemn loving, devoted same-sex marriages and their families is misguided. The model of marriage depicted in the Old Testament is one in which a man took many wives, most of whom were significantly younger than him (and often just girls). Those kinds of arrangements (the earliest “marriages”) were considered customary then because procreation was necessary to grow the population. That is certainly not the model of marriage that we’ve chosen to uphold today. In the New Testament, Jesus’ ministry was about unconditional love and acceptance. He taught people to “love thy neighbor”, a powerful commandment, second only to “love the Lord, your God.” He gave his life to uphold that belief.

    I beseech you to look into your heart (and your Bible) and think more about your position. Same-sex marriages have no negative effect on anyone. Instead, they expand the possibility for committed, faithful relationships and create more intact families with which to raise more healthy children of God. Anything else, I believe, is blasphemy.

    1. craftymadre –

      When you say in your first sentence that you are “a devout Christian,” – that statement is very telling. It says to me and to genuine disciples of Christ that you are very confused and deceived. You can rationalize Scripture all you want; but, God’s divine revelation condemns your position, behavior and lifestyle.

      I encourage you to read the following and to repent of your ways:

      Why Divine Revelation (Scripture) condemns homosexuality. Why do homosexual activists become so upset when their lifestyle is called into question?

      Mind you that your unbelief in God’s divine revelation and gift of Christ will “do you in.” Your lifestyle contrary to the Lord’s designed and intended purpose is your clear manifestation of strong-willed actions which set yourself against God Almighty.

      1. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:

        Jesus also told us not to judge one another, Nathan.

        1. Andrew –

          Please learn a lesson from the correct interpretation of Scripture regarding “judging:”

          Absolutes and Christ’s often misunderstood words of “Judge not…”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *