The Supreme Court Seems to Be Clearing the Way for Federally Recognized Gay Marriage

In much the same way that the Supreme Court “legalized” abortion, the liberal justices seem to be moving to “legalize” gay marriage.

This is to say that the Court is in no way “legalizing” anything, but instead ruling that the states cannot make these things “illegal”. It’s a cute little trick that liberals like to use to force Americans to do something while being able to pretend that they aren’t forcing anyone to do anything at all. It’s sad, it’s small and it’s an intellectually (and morally) bankrupt maneuver.

This time the issue revolves around the Alabama court’s decision to not abide by a federal judges ruling that they begin to immediately implement gay marriage in their state. Alabama’s Chief Justice Roy Moore has thus far stood heroically against the federal government’s attempt to force Alabama judges to break Alabama laws… but the latest move by the Supreme Court may finally force his hand. On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that it would not stop the order of a federal judge that demanded the state begin issuing gay marriage licenses.

In an oddly ironic twist, Sarah Warbelow of the Human Rights Campaign took a swipe at Justice Moore for trying to rule by judicial fiat.

Trending: How Liberals Copied the Nazi Weapons Law

“This is a pathetic, last-ditch attempt at judicial fiat by an Alabama Supreme Court justice–a man who should respect the rule of law rather than advance his personal beliefs.”

gay-marriage-picI say it’s ironic, because Justice Moore was simply upholding Alabama law which was passed by the Alabama legislature – a body which represents the people of Alabama. Instead of supporting the people of Alabama, Warbelow agrees with the ruling of a federal judge who was appointed (not elected) and is in truth the real example of ruling by “judicial fiat.” Maybe it’s not ironic… maybe Warbelow is just being a hypocrite.

Not everyone on the Supreme Court is happy with the decisions by their fellow members to not issue a stay against the federal court order.

In a scathing dissent, which was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote;

“… the Court looks the other way as yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor. This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question. This is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities. And, it is indecorous for this Court to pretend that it is.

Today’s decision represents yet another example of this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States. Over the past few months, the Court has repeatedly denied stays of lower court judgments enjoining the enforcement of state laws on questionable constitutional grounds. It has similarly declined to grant certiorari to review such judgments without any regard for the people who approved those laws in popular referendums or elected the representatives who voted for them. In this case, the Court refuses even to grant a temporary stay when it will resolve the issue at hand in several months.

I respectfully dissent from the denial of this application. I would have shown the people of Alabama the respect they deserve and preserved the status quo while the Court resolves this important constitutional question.”


Those represent some sharp criticisms and wise words from Justice Thomas – words that should be respected and given consideration. Justice Thomas cites case law and historic precedent to prove his argument, a practice which has seemingly been lost on the liberal members of the court as they continue to rule by their passion and personal beliefs instead of by the law. With this non-decision (which is most definitely a decision) the Supreme Court continues to disrespect democracy and the power of the states – while increasing the power of unelected federal judges. It’s a very scary and dangerous trend.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend