Obergefell — Draft Petition for Rehearing

July 17, 2015 @

This is the Obergefell — Draft Petition for Rehearing.

Obergefell Michigan Petition Rehearing July 17

15 Comments → “Obergefell — Draft Petition for Rehearing”


  1. Donald F. Ford

    1 year ago

    Gays are an abomination according to GOD’S word which is where my faith and belief live. I do not support gay marriage and I believe our nation is still a nation under GOD and should be following God’s laws and moral standards. I would suggest that we create a superior court that would handle constitutional, moral, and religious beliefs sine the supreme court can not make decisions that are not based on political beliefs, which I think should not be against the law


  2. Winston

    1 year ago

    There sis no Constitutional protection for homosexuality in natural marriage – period.


  3. Darlene

    1 year ago

    If no time or patience for anything else, one should at least read the Grounds For Rehearing!!

    The Sup Ct has overstepped its boundaries in many cases lately, MAKING laws rather than interpreting the laws under our Constitution, as they pledged to do. (And Congress sits by, puffed up with egotism, not keeping their pledges either!)


  4. Henry Stock

    1 year ago

    Why is it that a very small percentage of the population and just a few misguided lawyers decided to impose their will on an entire nation? Marriage has been defined for millennia as the union of a man and a woman. Many of us accept that it was intended to be that way by God. But regardless, it was intended to support the a family structure, a father, a mother, and the resultant naturally born children, the basic building block of civilization.

    No matter what the court did or the government might do, they cannot create what does not exist. In other words, they may call it marriage, but it will never be marriage as God intended marriage. Women may have children through artificial insemination . Men may be permitted to adopt, but no two individuals of the same sex can have children that are the union of two individuals.

    Nor will children exposed to these situation ever receive an normal upbringing since men and women are different and bring different traits to the child rearing process. I do not deny that the children could be loved, but they will lack something in their upbringing that cannot be replaced. So, what this ruling has done is to increase the rate of destruction of this civilization.

    What can be done? Well, one thing that has been proposed is a Convention of States to Amend the Constitution. It is an idea whose time has come. I am not suggesting an Amendment to address this specific issue, but one that can address almost all incidents of government overreach. Here is a link to an idea that I believe has much merit:
    http://www.seizingliberty.org/one-amendment-would-go-a-long-way-to-combatting-federal-government-overreach/

    And here is another article from the same site that you might think about:
    http://www.seizingliberty.org/possible-constitutional-fixes/

    I advocate the Convention of State route because it is part of the Constitution and I am not afraid of the outcome. I believe that it can be controlled for the good of the nation.

    What else would be more likely to permanently fix these government overreaches?


  5. Henry Stock

    1 year ago

    This is an edited version of my last post. I should have read it more carefully before hitting the submit button.

    Why is it that a very small percentage of the population and just a few misguided lawyers decided to impose their will on an entire nation? Marriage has been defined for millennia as the union of a man and a woman. Many of us accept that it was intended to be that way by God. But regardless, it was intended to support the a family structure, a father, a mother, and the resultant naturally born children, the basic building block of civilization.

    No matter what the court did or the government might do, they cannot create what does not exist. In other words, they may call it marriage, but it will never be marriage as God intended marriage. Women may have children through artificial insemination . Men may be permitted to adopt, but no two individuals of the same sex can have children that are the union of those two individuals.

    Nor will children exposed to these situation ever receive an normal upbringing since men and women are different and bring different traits to the child rearing process. I do not deny that the children could be loved, but they will lack something in their upbringing that cannot be replaced. So, what this ruling has done is to increase the rate of destruction of this civilization.

    What can be done? Well, one thing that has been proposed is a Convention of States to Amend the Constitution. It is an idea whose time has come. I am not suggesting an Amendment to address this specific issue, but one that can address almost all incidents of government overreach. Here is a link to an idea that I believe has much merit:
    http://www.seizingliberty.org/one-amendment-would-go-a-long-way-to-combatting-federal-government-overreach/

    And here is another article from the same site that you might think about:
    http://www.seizingliberty.org/possible-constitutional-fixes/

    I advocate the Convention of States route because it is part of the Constitution and I am not afraid of the outcome. I believe that it can be controlled for the good of the nation.

    What else would be more likely to permanently fix these government overreaches?


  6. Dr Bobbi A White

    1 year ago

    Joe Miller filed a Motion for Justice Ginsburg and Kagan to recuse themselves, since they had already performed same sex ceremonies. that Moyion was never addressed by the Supreme Court


  7. jaye

    1 year ago

    There is hope for justification. Bless all who are involved in drafting this petition, and I pray God will give strength to it and cause the so called “Supreme Court” to reverse it’s illegal and disgusting decision!!!
    If they do not, then we must unite and demand impeachment of all those guilty in arriving at such an illegal judgment!!!They bring shame on the office of “Supreme Court Judge”and are not worthy of holding that office!


  8. Pat

    1 year ago

    We need to remind each other that only the four states listed were parties to the suit. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of any of the others, and they are legally free to ignore the decision. They would be legally free for many other reasons as well.


  9. Sim

    1 year ago

    When your child is fighting with your nebours kids you can not report to nebours uncle and expect good judgment in favor of your child.


  10. justjammin

    1 year ago

    Please tell me how it hurts YOU if homosexuals get married? It is not going to change Tradition Marriage (which end in 50% divorce). Tradition marriage will always be the norm. It is a moot percentage of the population who are gay, and even smaller in numbers that want to marry. And if YOU are thinking that the “sex” they engage in is disgusting, then it IS YOU that are sick and disgusting for even thinking about it. I am POSITIVE there are very questionable things that heterosexuals do in the bedroom too. As long as it is between CONSENTING adults, seriously….. none of your business.


  11. justplainron

    1 year ago

    Dear justjammin,
    The reason two people of the same sex cannot get married has nothing to do with hurting me or their being “homosexuals”. That’s all just irrelevant, diversionary flak. The reason two people of the same sex can’t get married is the same as the reason pigs can’t fly: BECAUSE THEY CAN’T. That’s why “civil unions” were invented — a term denoting a somewhat marriage-like arrangement between two people who are not physically capable of being “married” to each other.
    The reality is, a woman can’t fertilize an egg, and a man can’t harbor an embryo within himself for nine months. Anyone who insists otherwise is at war with reality.
    As for homosexuals, nobody can reasonably deny that they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. But not to more than everyone else. They are not entitled to steal the words out of my language for their own self-justifying purposes. “Marriage” already is a word with a definition. Anything that isn’t “marriage” may be perfectly legal, but it isn’t “marriage”.
    justplainron


  12. robert h harbold jr

    1 year ago

    http://justplainron.blogspot.com/

    The reality is, a woman can’t fertilize an egg, and a man can’t harbor an embryo within himself for nine months. Anyone who insists otherwise is at war with reality.
    As for homosexuals, nobody can reasonably deny that they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. But not to more than everyone else. They are not entitled to steal the words out of my language for their own self-justifying purposes.

    Makes sense to me!


  13. Angie

    1 year ago

    I don’t hate or wish harm on anyone that is a homosexual, but I will never support same sex marriage. It is a sin and it is in the Bible. I dislike the behavior, not the individual.

    I think the term “marriage” should be for a man/woman and the term “union” or another term should be used for all others. I don’t judge other unions. It’s not our place to judge others. But the term “marriage” is what I’d like see used only for male-female relationships.

    I refuse to obey and will openly defy this unconstitutional ruling. I will not recognize any law that goes against the law of God.

    Same sex marriage is just about sex and companionship with no kids or reproduction so therefore not a real marriage but instead just 2 people of the same sex fulfilling their lustful perversion based on pleasure and nothing more.

    The decision is just the latest example of a federal judiciary run amok, legislating from the bench, issuing political edicts masquerading as reasoned interpretation of the law, and trampling on the time-honored values of millions of Americans. In bypassing the democratic process and refusing to allow the issue of marriage to be resolved by the people and their legislators, the Court has ensured that the disagreement over marriage will remain polarized due to the imposition of the redefinition of marriage of an entire nation.

    The Supreme Court has just committed a serious violation and desecration of religious rights and beliefs, which are protected by the Constitution. A very poor and unnecessary divisive decision.

    It’s plain to me, homosexuality (the act, not the sinner) is a sin. The SCOTUS just legalized perversion and sinful, unneeded lust.

    Legally speaking, the wedding ceremony is not binding until the marriage is consummated. Same-sex couples are not anatomically equipped to do so. So, same-sex “marriage” is an impossibility because of this truth.

    No court can overturn natural law. Nature and Nature’s God, hailed by the signers of our Declaration of Independence as the very source of law, cannot be usurped by the edict of a court, even the United States Supreme Court. Marriage is rooted not only in human history, but also in the biological and social reality that children are created by, and do best when raised by, a mother and a father. No court ruling can alter this truth.

    The Bible clearly teaches the enduring truth that marriage consists of one man and one woman. From Genesis to Revelation, the authority of Scripture witnesses to the nature of biblical marriage as uniquely bound to the complementarity of man and woman. This truth is not negotiable. The Lord Jesus himself said that marriage is from the beginning (Matt. 19:4-6), so no human institution has the authority to redefine marriage any more than a human institution has the authority to redefine the gospel, which marriage mysteriously reflects (Eph. 5:3)

    The Constitution of the United States doesn’t say anything about marriage.

    Thousands of years of human history cannot be overruled by a court – even if it is the U.S. Supreme Court. While five justices can change the law, they cannot change the enduring truth about what marriage is. Natural marriage has consisted of a man and a woman since the beginning of time, and so it will remain.

    This is not a legally sound decision, it’s not based in the Constitution. It’s based in an activist liberal court who wants to make the law and ignore that the States have always had the ability to regulate marriage. States can say people under 18 can’t marry or that more than two people can’t marry or that a person can’t be married to one person at the same time as another. If a state legislature or state residents vote to approve same-sex “marriage” then so be it. But the Federal Courts forcing states to adopt their world view is insanity. We will continue to stand on the Word. We should still love those people and show them, through love, who Jesus is…

    Please don’t give up on what God created regardless how bleak it looks. God alone is in control, our responsiblitity is to serve Him, and not base our future on what the evildoers want it to be. The Gay Marriage Ruling is invalid, and we the people can and will eradicate it.

    —–

    Two weeks ago, five unelected judges on the Supreme Court radically redefined marriage and decided to give to themselves the power to determine public policy for over 300 million Americans. The Supreme Court’s re-definition of marriage ignores the Constitution, thousands of years of history, the clear implications of science, and the wisdom of every major religious and philosophical tradition, especially the teachings of Christ.

    This course-altering decision – in the form of Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsburg – to redefine marriage was not based on the Constitution or prior Court cases. The writers of the Constitution clearly assumed a traditional definition of marriage and the text of the Constitution itself leaves to the states the responsibility to regulate marriage. As Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his dissent, “whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have the power to say what the law is, not what it should be.”

    Instead of following the Constitution, Justice Kennedy in the majority’s opinion quotes Confucius and relies on emotion and contorted logic better fit for a quack bull session on philosophy than the Supreme Court chambers.

    As it did with Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has overstepped its constitutional boundaries and cut short democratic debate on a vitally important cultural issue. In 2006, the people of Alabama overwhelmingly passed the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment to encode in Alabama’s constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman. It passed with 81% of the vote. Across our country, 31 states passed similar legislation defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

    If the proponents of gay marriage were so certain they were on the “right side of history,” why didn’t they continue to persuade and convince their fellow Americans through the democratic process? Instead, five unelected judges who are appointed for life have now silenced the people’s voice.

    Marriage is the cornerstone of society and it is the sacred union between a man and a woman for the purposes of creating and raising children in a nurturing family. Abandoning this definition of marriage – which every society in Western history has held for over 2,000 years – will have deeply negative consequences permanently altering the course of our nation.

    Children deserve and need both a father and a mother. The Court’s decision will result in thousands more children growing up in a home without a father, or a mother, at a time when already too many children are growing up in fractured homes and broken neighborhoods. The institution of marriage needs to be strengthened and honored, not broken or abandoned.

    We need to pray for our country and for our courts. The obvious decisions of the courts of the past, such as the Dred Scott decision, which proclaimed that black people are not persons, and the Roe v. Wade decision, which said it is ok to kill the unborn, and now the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, by which the Court redefined marriage, shows the fallibility of the Supreme Court.

    The Dred Scott decision was overturned and, hopefully, the right to kill the unborn will someday be overturned, along with overturning the erroneous definition of marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, giving rights to people who do not have the right by nature, according to the traditional makeup of society.

    We are to love, respect, and relate to those of a different sexual orientation, but recognize that a right to call their unions “marriage” is not a “right”. Besides, calling it a right hurts the rights of those whose faith teaches otherwise. This limits the freedom of religion of the majority of the people or asks us to teach our children a new definition of marriage, which is violating our religious freedom.


  14. - law&freedom.com

    1 year ago

    […] Obergefell: Draft Petition for Rehearing (July 17, 2015) […]


  15. Matthew Evans

    8 months ago

    The only way to truly overturn Obergefell is to invoke the Article V Convention of the States, whereby two-thirds of the States apply to Congress a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution and ratify it by three-fourths of the State legislatures. This is the legitimate way to do it. Congress won’t do it, so we must through our state legislatures.


Recent News

© 2017 United States Justice Foundation.