Doctors ask Alabama Supreme Court to resist Obergefell decision
The latest groups to officially resist Obergefell v Hodges include Alabama pediatricians and an entire church denomination, petitioning the state Supreme Court to disobey federal law in order to "protect" churches, families, and children.
The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) submitted a "Friend of the Court" brief November 6. "It is in the best interest of children and this State to preserve the fundamental and immutable nature of marriage between one man and one woman," the brief reads.
The association – which unites child and adolescent physicians and health care professionals across the nation – is specifically dedicated to the health and well-being of children.
The ACP brief calls the Obergefell decision "preposterous" and accuses the U.S. Supreme Court of having "no apparent thought to the inevitable problems children of those [same-sex] relationships will face."
The doctors say that accepting gay "marriage" "will deliberately and intentionally deny children the father or the mother so essential to their well-being."
"Tomorrow's children should not be subject to a novel social experiment that only insures higher changes of failure, confusion and harm."
"Marriage between one man and one woman has long been recognized as the bedrock of society … acknowledged by the state because of its singular ability to procreate, maintain a family structure where children can thrive, and insure the continuity of civilization," the physicians association reasoned.
The doctors go so far as to advise the Alabama Supreme Court that the U.S. Constitution "is never trumped by an opinion that ignores the text, structure, and delegated jurisdictions of that document."
The ACP brief appeals to a "higher law and moral code," which, they say, is acknowledged and enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. "The Declaration of Independence, part of the organic law of our nation, acknowledges the facts that our rights come from God and that the 'laws of Nature of Nature's God' laid the groundwork."
Another organization publicly calling for resistance is the Charismatic Episcopal Church for Life (CECL), which filed a "Friend of the Court" brief November 11. "Unless the Obergefell opinion is issued in pursuance of' the United States Constitution, then it is not binding on this Court."
The denomination of churches then demonstrates that gay "marriage" is not found in the U.S. Constitution – a charge Chief Justice John Roberts himself made in his dissent.
The CECL brief calls the Obergefell decision "repugnant to the plain meaning of the United States Constitution" and accused the highest court of the land of "overstepping its bounds."
Fr. Terry Gensemer of CECL told LifeSiteNews, "This Amicus asserts that the States have a unique and compelling interest in protecting the traditional understanding of marriage, just as it has in protecting the traditional understanding of the life of an unborn child."
"This Amicus is concerned with the rise of judicial overreach going beyond the mere act of declaring a state law unconstitutional, and delving into the realm of mandating state action on certain matters," Fr. Gensemer continued. "Such authority was never intended to be given to the judicial branch, and does not conform to the United States Constitution."
The churches also pointed out Wisconsin's state Supreme Court's defiance of SCOTUS's Dred Scott decision, which "said that blacks were not entitled to full protection as citizens."
Both briefs ask the Alabama Supreme Court to affirm its permanent injunction and disregard Obergefell.
"There is a growing number of voices calling for resistance to the lawless marriage opinion," Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, wrote online. "When Supreme Court Justices put their personal opinions in writing without one shred of Constitutional support, the people have a right to question their authority."
Staver says the Alabama Justices "should act in accordance with the law, not the opinion of five unelected lawyers."
The fight against homosexual encroachment is not new to Alabama. BeforeObergefell, a federal judge ruled that the state must "marry" gays, and the Alabama Supreme Court responded with a permanent injunction against the order.
Following Obergefell, the state Supreme Court invited groups and individuals to file "Friend of the Court" opinions as to whether and how the ruling should apply in Alabama.
Supporters of natural marriage point out that SCOTUS Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Elena Kagan were ethically required to recuse themselves for conflict of interest, in that they both had already performed same-sex "weddings" and had publicly advocated for gay "marriage." Additionally, the SCOTUS itself ruled just two years ago that states alone have the constitutional right to define marriage.
Other officials have publicly opposed Obergefell, including Johnson, Greene, and McMinn Counties in Tennessee, and dozens of legal scholars from Boston College, Kansas State, Notre Dame, the University of Texas, Villanova, Vanderbilt, Hillsdale, the University of Nebraska, Regent University and other schools, even calling the SCOTUS decision "illegitimate."
