Senator Chris McDaniel Releases Statement Regarding Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling

Senator Chris McDaniel today released the following statement regarding the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on gay marriage:

“Five unelected lawyers have, once again, ignored the democratic process.

Regardless of how one may feel about gay marriage, it cannot be plausibly maintained that it is a “fundamental” American liberty, and wishful thinking does not make it so. Otherwise, every state at the time of the 14th Amendment’s adoption would not have limited marriage to one man and one woman, without doubting the constitutionality of such actions.

Justice Scalia put it best in his dissent when he wrote that the court’s “practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

The Supreme Court is not a legislature. Under the Constitution, the federal judiciary only has the power to say what the law is, not what it should be.

The “right” announced today by this court has absolutely no basis in the Constitution. Nor does it have any basis in the common law. Consequently, it should have been left up to the respective states to decide the controversial issue of gay marriage.”

Chris McDaniel is an attorney, conservative commentator and was a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in 2014. He has represented the 42nd District, which encompasses part of South Mississippi, since 2008. He resides with his family in Ellisville, Mississippi. Find him on Twitter: @SenatorMcDaniel and on Facebook. 

Advertisements

Comments

  1. fathercharlescoughlin says:

    They took their marching orders from leftist population-controlling multi-billionaire George Soros. That is, King Soros, who controls Washington, DC (See more at http://www.culturalgenocide.wordpress.com)

  2. David Frazier says:

    Like Justice Scalia, I too am a “textualist” in my interpretation of the Constitution. Yet, Justice Scalia’s dissent on same-sex cases may be skewed by his very strong theistic beliefs. Since marriage is a fundamental right, government is required to demonstrate a “Compelling State Interest” under the standard of strict scrutiny (or even under the less stringent standard the government is required to demonstrate a “Rational Basis”) in order to uphold the disparate treatment of a suspect class contrary to the Equal Protection Clause. Therefore, what can be the legal, constitutional basis–the compelling state interest, for denying same-sex couples the same protections under the law for marriage equality as opposite-sex couples? Unfortunately, as everyone knows all too well from history, almost every time the State seeks to impose disparate treatment on a certain group, the State raises the issue of the Tenth Amendment and a state’s right to defend it’s actions.

    A quick review of American history reveals that each time a determined state interest and the tyranny of the majority want to deny individuals equal protection under the law, the state defends its offensive conduct under the doctrines of “federalism” and “states’ rights.” Take for instance, the “peculiar institution” of slavery. Also, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has been held since 1954 in Brown v. Bd. of Education to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and therefore, not a matter of federalism or states’ rights. Just like Jim Crow in his day, the efforts to deprive same-sex/LGBT equality, are driven by fear and prejudice, based on the fear of the unknown.

    Upon examining the writings, as well as the lives of Jefferson, Washington, Madison and Franklin, these Founding Fathers were disciples of Edmund Burke, whom many consider to be the father of modern conservativism. So, what is “conservatism”, but the belief in conserving the liberal institutions of our modern secular democratic republic by the rule of law, as established in the Declaration of Independence, outlined in the U.S. Constitution, discussed in the Federalist Papers, and articulated/defined by starie decisis in the form of judicial case case law. This idea of government and its representatives operating pursuant to the rule of law to conserve these liberal institutions in order to create an environment that promotes freedom, liberty, and equal opportunity for all who seek it. To be sure, today’s ruling preserves, promotes, and perserveres the rule of law.

    As a classical conservative, it disappoints me that the conservative causes of liberty and freedom in America continue to be obstructed so aggressively by movement Christians who hide among conservatives, promoting the use of an intrusive and overbearing state to regulate the personal lives and decisions of others, all in an effort to push their narrow worldview on everyone else. The fact that they mingle along the edges of the GOP Big Tent to promote their agenda makes it all the more problematic since these badly taint the conservative base and the conservative message.

    As reported by Doyle McManus in April 2014, even Russell Moore, the chief lobbyist for the Southern Baptist Convention, and Ralph Reed acknowledge that the halcyon days of the Religious Right may be ending. Hopefully, Catholics and Evangelical Christians will return once again to their purpose for existence in the first place–1) Seeking first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness; 2) Loving the Lord your God; and 3) Loving your neighbor as you would want your neighbor to love you. Today’s Court decision is simply a judicial affirmation that it is beyond the scope of good republican government to have a State Lord Protector overseeing the personal lives of the nation’s citizens. After all, ours is a secular democratic republic. Let’s keep it that way!

    • Now that the Supreme Court says gay marriage is the law of the land, what does the actual law say? Does it just say that two consenting adults of the same sex are free to marry? Are there any limitations? Will a father be able to marry his son? Will two sisters be able to marry etc. etc. Does the law say anything about incest? Also, how will this law affect heterosexual couples? If anal sex and oral sex are now considered a consummation of marriage. What will be considered adultery? Bill Clinton didn’t think oral sex was adultery, because he said, “I didn’t have sex with that woman!” But now if a guy has oral sex, will his wife be able to divorce him on the grounds of adultery?

  3. We can’t fly the Confederate Battle Flag on Government property because it is offensive to some people. But they can light up the White House in rainbow colors celebrating gay marriage. This is offensive to thousands of people. And the White House is Government property too. So why does this group get a free pass to offend people, but the other does not?

  4. Bill Smith says:

    David I am not a historian. However I would point out that you to misrepresent Burke. He believed that religion undergirded and was necessary to the civil order. He also simultaneously defended both freedom and order (authority). Moreover, while he defended the rights of Catholics, he strongly supported the Protestant establishment, the Chuch of England. Whatever the views of Jefferson, Burke did not by any understanding favor the secular state as you understand it. And he was, as you say, the father of modern consevatism.

    Re your assertion that the right of gays to marry is requred under the equal protection clause, it begs the question, What does it mean to marry? What is marriage. If marriage is some sort of relationship between persons involving sexual relations and sanctioned by the state, granting a certain status and rights, and responsibilites, then maybe, The problem is that this is a definition of marriage that is disconnected from western civilization. Marriage has always heretofore been understood as a heterosexual relationship involving sex that is sanctioned by and to some extent regulated by the state. The defintion has been turned on its head.

    If there are laws and codes that say what a cat is, and a dog sues and demands the right to be a cat because it is discrimination to not allow him to be a cat, then if a court will establish such right, OK he’s cat. But cat just lost its definition, the science of biology losts its legitimate authority in classification of animals,, the historic defintion lost its meaning, and language is devalued.

    Re marriage, a large part of the matter is that marriage has become largely meaningless. What does it mean? What are its obligations? What are the limiitations placed upon persons who enter it. When you can have sex with anybody you please anytime you please and if you can if you wish establish a temporarily permanent relationship with another person, which you can, without any state sanction, then who needs marriage” What does it even mean to be married? Marriage requires some kind of moral underpining, even if it is honored in the breach. Tradtionally, hypocrisy is the homage done by immorality to immorality.

    It seems to me the point of homosexual marriage is just that – to make a point. It surely is not that homesexuals wish to marry to avoid the immorality of sex before marriage. It’s just an issue to be made and to be forced upon those who believe in the historic definition of marriage and in tradional morality.

    Now, re states rights etc, it seems to me that the Constiutional question is not, What are the effiects of the tenth amendment? but What does the tenth say? What are the rights of states and individuals in relation to the central government? This is why Goldwater much as he wanted to vote for the 64 Civil Rigths Bill did not – he considered it unConstitutional. (Don’t tell me tthat was Bork’s fault. The record does not support that). So if you want a certain end that is inconsistent with the amendment then repeal it or create a right or prohibition by further amendment. It seems to me that is how conservatsm works.

  5. David Frazier says:

    Hey Bill: I apologize if my summary on “conservatism” as discussed above seems a bit misleading. I only meant to make a casual reference to Burke, not to get into his views. You are correct about Burke’s thoughts on religion–similar to how Marx viewed it. Why do you think that the Conservatives in England were always so jealous to guard the sanctity of the Church of England as the “state church”–one crown, one faith, one people? It was for that reason that “religiosity”, along with industriousness, honesty, and integrity were the foundation stones of the 17th century English notion of “virtue”. To be sure, our Founding Fathers retained these beliefs in the 18th, including the need of the crowd to believe in a higher power. However, as men of the Enlightenment, they recognized that religion, and the priestly class had never been a friend to the ideals of individual liberty. To protect against excesses of religiosity which have plagued mankind down through the ages, the First Amendment was adopted to the Constitution.

    You say that you’re not a historian. Respectfully, you’re also not a sociologist, psychologist, psychiatrist, medical doctor, attorney, or constitutional law expert. You’re a priest. Your whole professional purpose is to minister with a straight face to the fears, ignorance, and prejudices of those who are need of positive reinforcement that their lives matter. Marriage has taken on many different forms throughout the ages, based upon culture and customs. America is a quasi-sociologist country. If the marriage relationship is anything today, it is a partnership that leads to societal benefits such as Social Security, insurance, inheritance rights, adoption/child rearing rights, etc. The point of same-sex marriage is the same as my marriage of 40 years to my wife–love, companionship, fellowship, survival, etc.

    George Will has discussed the importance under the Constitution of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The U.S. Constitution bristles with the language of proscription: Congress, although the expression of popular sovereignty, “shall make no law” doing this and that. The purpose of such provisions, the Supreme Court has said, is to place certain things “beyond the reach of majorities.” Furthermore, the noblest career in the annals of democracy involved a principled recoil against democracy improperly elevated over all other values. Abraham Lincoln rejected the argument of his rival Stephen Douglas, who favored “popular sovereignty in the territories.” Douglas thought slavery should expand wherever a majority favored it. Lincoln understood that unless majority rule is circumscribed by the superior claims of natural rights, majority rule is merely the doctrine of “might makes right” adapted to the age of mass participation in politics. The idea that the strong have a right to unfettered rule if their strength is numerical is just the barbarism of “might makes right” prettified by initial adherence to democratic forms. The 14th Amendment was designed and ratified to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The judiciary is the vanguard of that protection.

  6. Bill Smith says:

    David, you write: “You say that you’re not a historian. Respectfully, you’re also not a sociologist, psychologist, psychiatrist, medical doctor, attorney, or constitutional law expert. You’re a priest. Your whole professional purpose is to minister with a straight face to the fears, ignorance, and prejudices of those who are need of positive reinforcement that their lives matter.”

    Now, you’re an attorney, right? So how can you an attorneyr have the knowledge to tell me what my “whole professional purpose” is? How can you know since you are not a priest? And of coures, your description of my whole professional purpoe is meant to be humorous, mocking, and serious at the same time.

    It is along the lines of my describing Richard “One call that’s all” Schwartz’ whole professional purpose as “persuading uneducated and ignorant people who have been in minor accidents that they have been is seriously injured and suffered much, that you really personally care about them, and that they are entitled to a pile of money, whiich you will extract from the eivil insurance company, while taking about half of what you win for yourself.”

    Now, you are an attorney. Within the wide spectrum of the practice of law, do you practice in the field of constitutional law?

    And you are not a a sociologist, psychologist, psychiatrist, medical doctor, right?

    So perhaps you should not be offering us your opinions but rather devote yourelf entirely to represnting your clients and not engage in the discusson of history, religion, sociology, psychology, psychiatry, or medicine.

    • David Frazier says:

      Bill, don’t be mad. I was just trying to get a little rise out of you while I was just reiterating the point that: 1) your arguments are colored by your sectarian beliefs and professional training which are irrelevant to the issue of equal protection under the law; and 2) Christians and other theists get all discumbobulated when they attempt to mix their sectarian prejudices and notions with civil or worldly matters. I know that you believe that God established the institution of marriage. But then you also believe in the Garden of Eden, Heaven and Hell, virgin births, and other important tenets of the Christian faith. But they do not belong in the consideration of constitutional principles. Your points simply confirm my earlier comments as to why members of the Christian Collectivist Community should focus on their kingdom duties and leave the running of the secular world to us secularists. You wouldn’t want me or Richard Dawkins making church policy–would you?

      As I have said before, I am but a humble country lawyer with a healthy level of narcissistism affecting my personality. Although I don’t claim to be an expert in any particular area of the law, constitutional law is one of the areas I have been regularly engaged in for these past 35 years. As a matter of fact, it appears that not only did I call the Supreme Court’s decision correctly in the Obergefell case, but the reasoning behind it follows very nicely with the Equal Protection Clause arguments which I have been making for the last 3 years on my blog, “Classical Conservative Perspectives”, Saltwaterpappy.tumblr.com. You should check it out. You will see that it does not take a constitutional scholar to see that from a purely legal, EPC, natural law and rights, and liberty perspective, that the decision was “preordained” once American culture began to adapt and accept the fact that LGBT folks should be made a fully integrated part of society in every way. Now isn’t that special! 🙂

    • Bill Smith says:

      David, you misread me if you thought I was mad when I posted my comment this morning. I can get mad, but I was not mad then. I just thought that what was good for the goose was probably just as good for the gander. I found it amusing to take the logic you wanted to apply to me as a priest and apply it to you and a lawyer.

      I don’t know if you really think that repeated assertions makes for good or compellling argument or if you just like to keep making the assertions. But saying you are objective and unprejudiced while I an other Christians are subjective and prejudiced does not make you any more qualified to offer opinions and participate in the civic/political realm than I or any other person who wishes to do so. I don’t want Richard Dawkins running churcb policy, but then I don’t want him running civic/political policy either. He can have the vote of course, and he can express his options and promote his candidates and agenda, and when he goes into the voting booth he can vote as he pleases for whatever reasons he wishes. But his public discourse, makes me think about the old Buckley saying that he would rather be governed by the first 100 names of the New York City phone book than by the Harvard faculty. For my part if I had to choose between being governed by you and Dawkins and Chris McDaniel and Melanie Sojourner, loathe as I would be to be governed by them, I would reluctantly choose them.

      • David Frazier says:

        Touche! 🙂

      • David Frazier says:

        The point is that once again the Christian Collectivist Community is attempting to put it’s spin on the Obergefell ruling, without having any working understanding of the Equal Protection Clause–or worse, simply ignoring it. Honestly, back when I was in law school in the 1970s I debated my Constitutional Law professor on why homosexuals did not receive the same equal protection under the law as everyone else based upon established case law. After several attempts to obfuscate, the professor finally acknowledged that in the real world that constitutional principles can only apply when the nation’s culture has caught up with the natural law/rights preserved in the Constitution. To be sure, in the Obergefell case, the Court simply acknowledged that America’s culture has finally caught up with the constitutional protection of equal protection under the law for everyone, regardless of LGBT status when it comes to the role of the State. The only thing that “surprises” me, is how anyone with a modicum of constitutional law background would disagree. It’s really “a no-brainer”. I read the dissents. They don’t read like judicial opinions. Rather, they read like Catholic encyclicals or policy statements issued by the Vatican Office for the Purity of the Faith f/k/a The Inquisition. They are moral arguments, not based on constitutional principles or the rule of law.

  7. Bill Smith says:

    Meaningless Heterosexual Marriage created the logic of Homosexual Marriage

    http://thechristiancurmudgeonmo.blogspot.com/2015/06/everybodys-doing-it.html

  8. David Frazier says:

    Here is an example of how members of the Christian Collectivist Community who hold public office should conduct themselves in a “Christ-like” manner if they are not able to fulfill their official duties any longer due to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

    Grenada Circuit Clerk resigns over same-sex marriage
    http://on.thec-l.com/1IqbDaU

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: