Obergefell ruling ruled us all 'illogical'

Friday, September 30, 2016
 | 
Charlie Butts (OneNewsNow.com)

Jim ObergefellA family court judge told a religious group it's the U.S. Supreme Court, not the states, that are behaving irrationally over the legal definition of marriage.

Approximately 16 months have passed since the high court announced its 5-4 decision that favored plaintiff Jim Obergefell (pictured at right). 

The court discovered that the 14th Amendment, which guarantees due process and equal protection, includes allowing two men, or two women, to be legally recognized as a married couple.  

U.S. ConstitutionBoth opponents and defenders of the court's decision considered it a landmark ruling, since it struck down state-level marriage laws and constitutional amendments.

The logic and reasoning behind the ruling have frustrated Tim Philpot, a circuit court judge in Kentucky.

"The union is in the difference," Philpot said in a Sept. 8 speech before the Francis Asbury Society. "And so having sameness in marriage is really very illogical."

Flipping that observation around, Philpot said the high court ruled last year that it's irrational to believe that legal marriage is solely a union of a man and a woman, and also irrational for states to create such laws that declare that.

Marriage man and woman 620x300"I'm sort of offended by that," he said, "the Supreme Court telling me I'm irrational."

That observation mirrors the criticism of the court's conservative justices, whose dissenting opinions were scathing.

"Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal," Justice John Roberts wrote, referring to the push to legalize same-sex marriage. "But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

Justice Clarence Thomas warned that a majority of the court "invoked our Constitution in the name of a 'liberty' that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect." 

The judge's speech earned him a critical story by the Courier-Journal newspaper, which pointed out that Philpot oversees homosexual adoptions despite his religious objections to homosexuality.  

The newspaper apparently attempted – but failed - to find attorneys whose homosexual clients were treated unfairly by Philpot. The judge has always been polite and fair, they said. 

Comments

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWS BRIEF

FEATURED PODCAST

VOTE IN OUR POLL

How confident are you in a Joe Biden-led foreign policy?

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

Minimum wage hike all but dead in big COVID relief bill
Critics: Cuomo apology 'tone-deaf,' ignores power imbalance
United Methodist conservatives detail plans for a breakaway
  US sets sanctions over Russia opposition leader's poisoning
Nigerian governor says 279 kidnapped schoolgirls are freed

LATEST FROM THE WEB

OK, boomers, time to fix the mess we've made
Professor called ‘racist’ for arguing race isn’t the sole explanation for poverty
Climate change obsession is a cult
Anti-voter ID activists storm Georgia Capitol. Has anyone called the National Guard?
No, Sen. Ron Johnson didn’t promote a ‘conspiracy theory’ about the Capitol riot

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day
NEXT STORY
Moore takes the stand in 'testy' court hearing

Roy Moore (close-up)An Alabama Supreme Court chief justice will soon learn whether he will be punished by a judicial body.