Building the Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage — Article 16 — Refusal to Issue a Same-Sex Marriage License is a Civic Duty

September 4, 2015 @

Article XVI
Friends of Traditional Marriage —

Attached is the sixteenth article in the series on “Building the Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage” sponsored by the U.S. Justice Foundation.

This article is entitled: “Refusal to Issue a Same-Sex Marriage License is a Civic Duty”
This article is by us — Herbert W. Titus & William J. Olson.

USJF urges you to distribute this article, and the other articles in the series.

Our article was published in the below listed news outlets:

Before It’s News

Conservative News Service

Conservative Tribune

Locker Dome

Western Journalism Center

11 Comments → “Building the Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage — Article 16 — Refusal to Issue a Same-Sex Marriage License is a Civic Duty”

  1. luvzforplay

    4 years ago

    This country was founded by people that believed in God and religion , They set our Constitution and if you look back at the amendments that were made in that document you will see they were not really needed and we could have functioned fine with out them . As for same sex marriages that is addressed in our Bible in Leviticus : He who lies with another man as he would a woman shall be forever damned ! Now hot can any God fearing person propose a law that would allow that sort of behavior. This whole law proposed by Obama was done so because Obama is not a Christen, he is a Muslim and should be over ruled and in fact should be in prison for any of several acts of Treason he has committed and is guilty of , before he further brings us closer to the pit ! Obama is a registered Homosexual and has a lifetime membership to Man’s Country a well known homosexual bath house in Chicago , so possibly that’s why he wants them to be able to marry his butt buddy Michael/Michelle !!

  2. Judge Paul Wright

    4 years ago

    I appreciate what Attorneys Titus and Olson are doing.

    Paul Wright
    Duke Law 75
    ret. Superior Ct Judge

  3. jacob mandelblum

    4 years ago

    The Supreme Court decision is a VICED one.

    Justice GISNBURG and Justice KAGAN vote should be disregarded for failing to recuse
    themselves or being forced to….

    No judge should be allowed to be judge and party at the same time.
    Justice GINSBURG by her own confession, has officiated at many same sex marriages.
    Justice KAGAN standing on the matter is similar and well known…


  4. mary dean

    4 years ago

    one man (judge) can change all our minds about marriage – among other things I never met anyone that important why is it any of his business to change God’s law?? he was elected by mere people I guess he thinks that makes him above the rest of us God does not need any help He is still in control

  5. Thank you for this.

  6. Sharon

    4 years ago

    Why are the media saying she broke a law. I do not remember congress passing a bill or states changing their constitution that said that marriage is a federal issue, or that anyone ended DOMA that was signed into law. SCOTUS does not have the authority to make law, after all that is why they could not change ACA!!!

  7. connie

    4 years ago

    I so agree with this person, i just don’t understand why others eyes are blind!!!

  8. ez

    4 years ago

    i dont have any use for religion or marriage, this is 1 reason i dont participate in either. however, i do understand english, history and what these things mean. i dont have an issue w/ gays having some sort of union, fact is they can create any sort of legal contract which asserts many of the privileges that come w/ marriage. i just totally disagree with calling it the same thing and forcing everyone to think and feel they way they do as well as forcing people to work they way they want. the homosexual movement continually mis-uses the english language to push their narrow minded political agenda for something that most of them dont even care about. and then the useful idiots of the left control addicts jump on the bandwagon so as to ‘progress’ our culture. fact is, w/ less than 2% of humanity being gay and a only a small percentage of them being in any sort of committed relationship (statistically gays are the most promiscuous of any sexual group)it’s ridiculous in the extreme to modify all of society to acquiesce to this. i’m left handed. it would be extremely stupid to force every last store, bank, dmv, etc to chain a pen to both sides of their counter to appease me, and left handedness is 13% of the population…

  9. - law&

    4 years ago

    […] Refusal to Issue a Same-Sex Marriage License is a Civic Duty (September 4, 2015) […]

  10. Stephen Weiland

    4 years ago

    In the beginning, you name the time frame, life appeared (living, reproducing, alive things). Chemistry, evolution’s infancy, intelligent design, random events, nature, God – something set the stage and put things in motion. Living things appeared and for the last hundreds of millions of years they came together in a pattern and context that hasn’t changed since that long ago beginning. They reproduced. The previous generation produced the current and the current produced the next. Nature, if we can settle on a name, established an imperative and the means to enable that imperative. The imperative, the first and foremost goal of the entire natural world, is perpetuation of the species – all species. Reproduction enables this goal. Without this marvelous solution there would be nothing but hydrogen, helium, more complex atoms, photons, dark matter and silence. You wouldn’t be here.

    But how did nature flesh out this reproduction enabler. Simple. This enabler is called sex. Across all species – birds, bugs, flowers, fish, pigs, humans, crustaceans, mollusks, corn, watermelons – there has been posited a male and a female who have been designed to come together, share genes, and produce the next generation. This is the imperative, the first goal of nature: reproduce via the interaction of the male and female of the species. But nature didn’t leave this coming together of the male and female of the species to chance. The odds against random coupling and reproduction would have been too great. Instead nature introduced attraction between the male and female, that irresistible urge to come together, couple, and create the next generation. No need to expand here. We’ve all felt it. That indefinable but compelling urge, that force that many times defies reason, that passion to be with the opposite sex, the passion to have sexual intercourse. You think we humans are alone? No. Nature is replete with examples of sexual attraction. Birds display their feathers, frogs blow up their cheeks, males display strength of arms or power, females display beauty of form, worms display I know not what. But every species is endowed with the tools to attract the other – the male to the female or the female to the male.

    Now let’s concentrate on the human species. I think we can agree that men and women are different. Women have the anatomy and the emotional equipment designed to bear and nourish children – the next generation. Men have the anatomy to sponsor procreation and the inclination to protect the nascent family. This is no accident. The newborn human child is the most dependent of all mammalian species. Without the care of the female and the protection of the male the newborn human would quickly die both physically and morally. So how has nature and the human experience reflected and supported this obvious situation?

    In so many past ages, in so many diverse cultures, in so many chronicled histories the answer has been labeled the “Family”. The family is that indispensable unit that has surrounded and protected the human ability to respond to nature’s mandate: to perpetuate the species. The family, that unit composed of a man and a woman and children, has not only been the reflection of nature’s mandate but the bulwark of a functioning society. Children, taught and nourished by the mother, a female, and exemplified by the father, a male, are the functionally equipped next generation, a vital element of the future.

    What have we called this time honored coupling of a male and a female designed to construct and furnish the bulwark of a functioning society? We have called it many names but they all devolve into the word “Marriage”. Marriage, the coming together of a man and a woman whose primary goal is to create and raise children according to nature’s mandate. This is the calling. This is the mandate. This word “Marriage” as translated into thousands of languages, dialects and signs throughout history is the verbal and intellectual recognition of an a priori concept, nature’s mandate – man/woman/child/maintenance of the species.

    But what of homosexual marriage? What of two men or two women who now wish to label their commitment to each other with the word “Marriage”? They want to share love and homosexual activity without the benefit of offspring and they want a name for this union. They want to share the label “Marriage” and in so doing become co equal in every aspect of law, recognition, respect and acceptance with a heterosexual couple. They want to eliminate any legal or contextual difference between a homosexual union and a heterosexual union. But this is absurd. It flies in the face of millions of years of history, nature’s mandate and the obvious recognition of the fact that men and women are different and designed to fulfill different roles. It is unnatural.

    But who should care? Homosexuals are people. Why not just give them what they want? Why should we have DOMA and other societal restrictions against homosexuals sharing the word, concept and legal definition of “Marriage”? Isn’t it their civil right? Isn’t it justified by the equal protection aspects of our Bill of Rights? The answer is “No”. Neither homosexual marriage, nor heterosexual marriage are “civil rights”. Heterosexual marriage is a time and nature honored situation which is sanctioned, encouraged and sponsored by all societies. It is a reflection of the obvious need for men and women to come together, raise families, and perpetuate the species. That’s why organized societies sanction heterosexual marriage and grant it special privileges We need marriage. Nature demands what we traditionally call marriage. History’s clear evidence is that without marriage and the family, society crumbles.

    That’s all well and good. But why don’t we just recognize homosexual marriage as the same in every aspect as heterosexual marriage? Who cares? I care. I believe that the preservation of marriage and the family cares. I believe that the echoing voices from the past care. In our day there are so many assaults on the concept of marriage that we don’t need yet another. We don’t need and shouldn’t tolerate a diminution of nature’s mandate by equating heterosexual marriage with gay marriage. Recreational sex, single parents, cosmetic abortions, no fault divorce, the cultural ridicule of anything that prevents “me” satisfaction – all diminish the thousands of years old concept of marriage. Why introduce yet another knife cut.

    Some argue that the “right” to gay marriage is on the same plane as the black American’s struggle to gain civil rights equality. If I were black I’d be deeply offended by this effort to equate gay marriage with the hundred year struggle to sit in the front of the bus, to have equality before the law, to not be lynched, to compete on an equal basis in the job market and in the public arena. Can you imagine Martin Luther King leading a march in Selma, Alabama, for gay marriage? Absurd.

    Gays would like to be viewed in every aspect as identical to heterosexuals. But there is no identity here. The urge to equate gay marriage with heterosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue, it is not a constitutional issue, it is not a legal issue. It is a desire to ignore natural differences and the natural order and , in the process, to diminish the respect, honor and absolute necessity of marriage and the family.

    Gays and Lesbians are people. As people they can be and are kind, loving, compassionate and deserving of respect. What they don’t merit is the heterosexual sanction of marriage

  11. David Boarman

    4 years ago

    Actually, to Stephen Weiland’s point: no, marriage is not a right, much less a “Civil Right”. Marriage is not an institution ordained, designed and defined by men, governments or civil entities.

    Marriage was ordained, designed and defined by God in the book of Genesis when one single prerequisite was issued: for this reason a man will leave his father and mother to be united as one with his wife.

    So, we see to your point that the previous generation’s parents are “father” and “mother” – one man, one woman. We see then that the generation to follow will have the same requirement: a man to unite with his “wife” – one man, one woman.

    The fact that God ordained the institution with a prerequisite, a requirement, speaks to the fact that marriage is not a right. If it were, then there would be no need for the definition because a God-ordained right must apply equally to all individuals regardless of physiological differences we cannot choose at birth: gender, skin color or disability. If marriage were a right, then one might be able to assert that another person “must” be their bride regardless of the other’s will to participate.

    Privileges are given by certain authorities: the privilege to drive, check out books from the library, even voting is a privilege. Note that each of these has some requirements that must be met for the privilege to be authorized. So it is with marriage. In each of these privileges, there are rules to both attaining and keeping a privilege. Even the Bible teaches what a good, healthy marriage looks like. Mutually following those teachings, a man and woman will be happily married for a long, long time – until death they will not part.

Recent News

© 2020 United States Justice Foundation.