The Nullification of the 1st amendment
http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/Dobson-obergfell-fight-not-about-marriage/I have been watching and listening to people every since the 5 justice’s on the Supreme Court handed down their decision on gay marriage. I may be naive, but I don’t understand their reasoning. It seems to me they are saying that the 14th amendment has precedence over the 1st amendment. In other words they seem to be saying that the 14th amendment overturns the 1st amendment making it null and void. But that makes no sense to me since nothing in the Constitution gives them the right to delegate the right to decide the validity of the 1st amendment. If their ruling is saying that the 14th amendment overturns the 1st, then on it’s very face their ruling is unconstitutional and therefore void. I was reading a post on WND earlier and it seems Dr. James Dobson has a lot of questions himself.
“Obergefell, Dobson said, “is actually about everything that America has been and will be.”
WND reported the case of Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis, who has refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples because of her deeply held religious beliefs.
Homosexuals went to court demanding that she be forced to violate her faith even though they are able to get their licenses at any of dozens of other locations around the state.
Her case is moving up to the U.S. Supreme Court now.
Who put the American family in the bull’s-eye? Read “Takedown, From Communists to Progressives How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage”
The Davis case poses the question of whether or not the government can force someone to violate his or her constitutional religious rights to accommodate the newly recognized right to “same-sex marriage.”
Davis’ critics have vowed to make her pay because she’s not upholding a right that didn’t exist when she took her oath of office. Kentucky Gov. Steven Beshear, a Democrat, has told clerks to issue the licenses or resign. But that order would appear to create a religious test for public officials, meaning those with disfavored beliefs would be banned from office, which is unconstitutional.”