Statement Calling for Constitutional Resistance to Obergefell v. Hodges 

We are scholars and informed citizens deeply concerned by the edict of the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges wherein the Court decreed, by the narrowest of margins, that every state in the country must redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships.   4249886990_59702a0b25_o

The Court’s majority opinion eschewed reliance on the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, as well as the Court’s own interpretative doctrines and precedents, and supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife.

The opinion for the Court substituted for traditional—and sound—methods of constitutional interpretation a new and ill-defined jurisprudence of identity—one that abused the moral concept of human dignity.

The four dissenting justices are right to reject the majority opinion in unsparing terms.   

Justice Scalia refers to it as “a naked judicial claim to legislative….power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”   

Justice Thomas says the opinion “exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority” as it perverts the meaning of liberty into an entitlement to government action.  

Justice Alito calls attention to the well-established doctrine that the “liberty” guaranteed by the due process clause protects only those rights “that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and that it is “beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.” He further points to the opinion’s tendency to reduce the purpose of marriage to “the happiness of persons who choose to marry.” He warns it will be used to “vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy” and is yet another example of the “Court’s abuse of its authority.”   

Chief Justice Roberts says “the Constitution leaves no doubt” that the majority’s “pretentious” opinion is incorrect. It even attempts to “sully those on the other side of the debate” in an “entirely gratuitous” manner.   

If Obergefell is accepted as binding law, the consequences will be grave. Of the results that can be predicted with confidence, four stand out: 

First, society will be harmed by being denied the right to hold out as normative, and particularly desirable, the only type of human relationship that every society must cultivate for its perpetuation. This compelling interest is strengthened by the fact that there is strong evidence to support what common sense suggests, namely, that children fare best when raised by their married mother and father who are both responsible for bringing them into the world and who provide maternal and paternal influences and care.  

Second, individuals and organizations holding to the historic and natural understanding of marriage as a conjugal union—the covenantal partnership of one man and one woman—will be vilified, legally targeted, and denied constitutional rights in order to pressure them to conform to the new orthodoxy.   

Third, the new jurisprudence of dignity is unlimited in principle and will encourage additional claims to redefine marriage and other long-established institutions.

Fourth, the right of all Americans to engage in democratic deliberation, and ultimately self-government, will be decisively undermined. 

Any decision that brings about such evils would be questionable. One lacking anything remotely resembling a warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution must be judged anti-constitutional and illegitimate. Obergefell should be declared to be such, and treated as such, by the other branches of government and by citizens of the United States.

In 1788, James Madison wrote, “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”   

In 1857, Abraham Lincoln said, “Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession.” If a decision “had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent.” If, however, a decision is “wanting in all these claims to the public confidence,” it is “not factious” to resist it.   

Obergefell is wanting in all these claims to the public confidence. It cannot therefore be taken to have settled the law of the United States.   


We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is. 

We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.  

We call on all federal and state officeholders: 

To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case.

To recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions.

To pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons.

To open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evident in Obergefell.

We emphasize that the course of action we are here advocating is neither extreme nor disrespectful of the rule of law. Lincoln regarded the claim of supremacy for the Supreme Court in matters of constitutional interpretation as incompatible with the republican principles of the Constitution. Our position is summed up in Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: 

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

The proper understanding and definition of marriage is self-evidently a vital question affecting the whole people. To treat as “settled” and “the law of the land” the decision of five Supreme Court justices who, by their own admission, can find no warrant for their ruling in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, would indeed be to resign our government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. That is something that no citizen or statesman who wishes to sustain the great experiment in ordered liberty bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be willing to do. 


(Institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only)

Bradley C. S. Watson, Philip M. McKenna Chair in American and Western Political Thought and Professor of Politics, Saint Vincent College

John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Dale E. Fowler School of Law at Chapman University

George W. Dent, Jr., Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University, Founder of American Principles Project

Matthew J. Franck, Director, William E. and Carol G. Simon Center for Religion and the Constitution, Witherspoon Institute

Daniel J. Mahoney, Augustine Chair in Distinguished Scholarship, Assumption College

Stephen H. Balch, Director, Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, Texas Tech University

Mickey G. Craig, William & Berniece Grewcock Professor of Politics, Hillsdale College

Paul Moreno, William and Berniece Chair in US Constitutional History, Hillsdale College

Lucas E. Morel, Class of 1960 Professor of Ethics and Politics, Washington and Lee University

Joseph M. Knippenberg, Professor of Politics, Oglethorpe University

Susan Hanssen, Associate Professor of History, University of Dallas

Wm. Barclay Allen, Dean Emeritus, Michigan State University

Daniel C. Palm, Professor of Politics and International Relations, Azusa Pacific University

Lynn D. Wardle, Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University

Scott FitzGibbon, Professor of Law, Boston College Law School

Stephen Casey, Casey Law Office, P.C.

James C. Phillips, J.D.

Joshua W. Schulz, Associate Professor of Philosophy, DeSales University

John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus of Law, Louisiana State University Law Center

Ralph A. Rossum, Salvatori Professor of American Constitutionalism, Claremont McKenna College

Walter Schumm, Professor of Family Studies, Kansas State University

Anne Hendershott, Director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life, Franciscan University of Steubenville 

Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

Christopher Wolfe, Professor of Politics, University of Dallas

Michael D. Breidenbach, Assistant Professor of History, Ave Maria University

Robert Koons, Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin

Stephen M. Krason, Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies, Franciscan University of Steubenville; President, Society of Catholic Social Scientists

Micah J. Watson, William-Spoelhof Teacher-Chair in Political Science, Calvin College

Daniel Robinson, Fellow, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford

David Novak, J. Richard and Dorothy Shiff Chair of Jewish Studies and Professor of Religion and Philosophy, University of Toronto

Adam J. MacLeod, Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Faulkner University

Robert Lowry Clinton, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Colleen Sheehan, Professor of Political Science, Villanova University

Peter W. Wood, President, National Association of Scholars

Michael M. Uhlmann, Professor of Politics and Policy, Claremont Graduate University

John Agresto, Former president of St. John’s College, Santa Fe, and the American University of Iraq

Mark T. Mitchell, Professor of Government, Patrick Henry College

Carol M. Swain, Professor of Political Science and Law, Vanderbilt University

Nathan Schlueter, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Hillsdale College

J. Daryl Charles, Affiliated Scholar, John Jay Institute

Ted McAllister, Edward L. Gaylord Chair and Associate Professor of Public Policy, Pepperdine University

David R. Upham, Associate Professor of Politics, University of Dallas

Thomas D’Andrea, Fellow, Wolfson College, University of Cambridge; Director, Institute for the Study of Philosophy, Politics, and Religion

Daniel Mark, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Villanova University

Hadley P. Arkes, Edward N. Ney Professor of Jurisprudence  Emeritus, Amherst College; Director, James Wilson Institute on Naturals Right and the American Founding 

Philip Bess, Professor of Architecture, University of Notre Dame

Jeffery J. Ventrella, Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of Student Training and Development, Alliance Defending Freedom

Teresa S. Collett, Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Jay Bergman, Professor of History, Central Connecticut State University

Robert L. McFarland, Associate Dean of External Affairs and Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Faulkner University

Carson Holloway, Associate Professor Political Science, University of Nebraska, Omaha

Gary D. Glenn, Distinguished Teaching Professor Emeritus, Northern Illinois University

Paul A. Rahe, Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in Western Heritage, Hillsdale College

Angelo Codevilla, Professor Emeritus, Boston University

Bradley P. Jacob, Associate Professor of Law, Regent University School of Law

Raymond B. Marcin, Professor of Law Emeritus, The Catholic University of America

Matthew Spalding, Associate Vice President and Dean, Allen P. Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, Hillsdale College

James A. Davids, Associate Professor of Law, Regent University School of Law

Ken Masugi, Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute

Edward J. Erler, Professor of Political Science Emeritus, California State University, San Bernardino

James W. (Jim) Richardson, Board of Directors, Christian Legal Society

Robert F. Sasseen, President and Professor of Politics Emeritus, University of Dallas

Lynne Marie Kohm, John Brown McCarty Professor of Family Law and Associate Dean of Faculty Development and External Affairs, Regent University School of Law

Steven D. Smith, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego

Bernard Dobranski, Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law, Ave Maria School of Law

Lee J. Strang, John W. Stoepler Professor of Law & Values, University of Toledo College of Law

Daniel D. Barnhizer, Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law

Adam Candeub, Professor of Law; Director, Intellectual Property, Information, and Communications Law Program, Michigan State University College of Law

Glenn S. Sunshine, Professor, Department of History, Central Connecticut State University

Travis Ricketts, Professor of History and Government, Bryan College

Dean R. Broyles, Esq., Founder & Chief Counsel, The National Center for Law & Policy


  1. If you are accepting additional signatures, please add mine: Glenn S. Sunshine, Professor, Department of History, Central Connecticut State University.

  2. I read your article on same sex marriage.
    I have been trying to tell everyone about Ginsberg and Kagen.
    I believe that they were in error because they had already preformed same sex weddings in 2013 & 2014. They should have recused themselves from the same sex marriage decision.
    I believe that there was a violation on their part.
    I am surprised that Not a single lawmaker brought this out since it is common knowledge.

  3. Society is harmed when the bedrock principal of constitutional Equal Protection is not respected. In fact, society will actually be helped by allowing gay couples to form stable, legally-recognized relationships.

  4. Daniel J McNicoll says:

    May the American Principles Project grow strong and vibrant so that it can perpetuate the principles our Founding Father’s valiantly fought to establish.

  5. John Hunt says:

    Thank you for this thoughtful, well written piece. I am with you.

  6. Sarah Rabinowitz says:

    “We are scholars and informed citizens deeply concerned by… Obergefell v. Hodges. The Court’s majority opinion… supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife.”

    Millennia (plural) literally means thousands of years. There has been no understanding that marriage is the union of husband and wife for thousands of years. You’re not “scholars”. You’re a bunch of fucking bigots. Are we clear on that?

  7. Thank-you, I do trust that respectable people with right this terrible wrong.

  8. SCOTUS says Same sex marriage is legal we hear how evil SCOTUS is, and that they don’t know the constitution.

    SCOTUS says Same sex marriage is illegal we would hear how great SCOTUS is, and how they stood up for bigots, that are “alleged” christians, yet are not Christ Like. And praise about how their religion (a perverted form of Christianity) is the law of the land, Ignoring the Separation of Church and State…

    You lose making the entire country, subject to your religion, and its rules, yet complain about SCOTUS not knowing the Constitution, yet you over look the part that says NO religion in government…. Typical alleged “christians” !!!! To those real Christians, thank you for knowing the difference…

  9. Daniel Garber says:

    I completely agree with the reasoning in this document. Since I think that the Supreme Court completely misinterpreted the 2nd Amendment, I call upon states to institute strict controls on gun ownership immediately. Five members of the Supreme Court should not be allowed to pervert the clear meaning of the constitution, which clearly gives the right to arm only to “a well-regulated militia,” and not to any private citizen who wants to purchase an arsenal of weapons.

  10. Daniel Garber says:

    And while we are at it I have a few thoughts about “Citizen’s United”.

  11. Robert F. Patterson says:

    Is this any different from Roe v. Wade? Or the fact that our Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase “One nation under God,” but it is forbidden to teach about God or pray to Him in a public school?

  12. lol. signatories are a pathetic rogues gallery of academic mediocrities. impotently calling for defiance of a Supreme Court ruling is truly a sign of your total defeat on this issue: it won’t be defied, but your bigotry is the only thing the world will remember in your obituaries. carry on.

  13. While we’re at it, let’s bring back slavery and segregation! Brown V.Board of Ed. was a tremendous overreach as was the Emancipation Proclamation. Let’s get ’em all!

  14. How do I sign onto this statement?

    Dean R. Broyles, Esq.
    Founder & Chief Counsel
    The National Center for Law & Policy

  15. I wish to sign the statement.

  16. tom carney says:

    No one but the LGBT folks take this effort to normalize perversion seriously anyway. These people are less than 4% of the population. Let them crown each other the Admiral of the Western World! Who cares?

  17. 1. That comment is a slur on all non biological and extended families

    Second, people who believe that the covenantal partnership of marriage as one man and one woman—will be vilified, legally targeted, and denied constitutional rights in order to pressure them to conform to the new orthodoxy.  

    They will have the right to believe in a limited definition of marriage and are not free from people saying that their understanding is outdated or ridiculous

    Third, the new jurisprudence of dignity is unlimited in principle and will encourage additional claims to redefine marriage and other long-established institutions.

    Scare tactic, that’s what they said after cohabitation and interracial marriages were legalized in 1967 by the Loving case

    Fourth, the right of all Americans to engage in democratic deliberation, and ultimately self-government, will be decisively undermined.

    The Public has debated, engaged in democratic deliberation and self government for at least 20 years and this issue has been in the public eye for at least 50 years as far as gay people fighting for the rights to live as they wish to without governmental overreach

    Nothing has been undermined other than their air of superiority over gay people.

  18. Marriage was first determined by the church. The government made rules based on the church’s meaning of marriage, and not the government’s meaning of marriage.

  19. David Zimmerman says:

    Why not simply say that you find homosexuality “yucky” and leave it at that? All the rest is hollow rationalization.

  20. Daniel T. Primozic, Ph. D. says:


  21. Rev. Michael Dobbs says:

    I totally agree. The Constitution has been abrogated so many times in the last 7 years for one agenda or another mostly by those who swore to uphold it!! May God help us!!

  22. G.Halliday says:

    This is a very well written statement!

  23. This is a bunch of hogwash and gobbily-gook, obviously written by a shmuck of a Bunch of Christian legals “scholar.” Don’t be mistaken, these folks have an agenda and their agenda is frightening. These educated people must know that they are advocating discrimination, and yet, none of the them care.

  24. says:

    I don’t see a lot of constitutional law professors from credible institutions on this list. Madrassahs like Hillsdale, Regent, Claremont, and Brigham Young don’t really count for much. It’s hard to find even a few signatories on the list who would qualify as bona fide experts uncompromised by religious zealotry.

    I get it. You are all religious zealots. But the Constitution is our governing document, not the Pearl of Great Price. What credible secular argument can you advance for your position? And why did those secular arguments fail so miserably in the lower courts?

    If Obergefell is such an outlier, why were the lower courts virtually unanimous?

  25. Barry Small says:

    God has greatly blessed America right now in the face of enormous though surmountable challenges. Such an abundance of truth-loving, accomplished leadership, as He’s done before with real, great men such as Madison and Lincoln and women of great courage and grace. May God lead the next steps and the 2016 election. May the plans of the evil ones come to nothing and may the world be blessed to see the return to the leadership the USA, those who in truth and integrity, govern according to the Constitution and for the true welfare of the people of the United States. May there be many raised up who will lead in humble acknowledgement before God of the true source of their responsibility and authority The world, as well as the USA, will be the much better and extremely grateful for it. Thank you signatories for your courage and inspiring example. May justice be done, may this and all such error, be redressed, may truth prevail. May secret societies and secret agenda drivers be exposed and their unseemly, rotten practises and schemes be brought to nothing, replaced by what is best and true. May President Kennedy’s vision of an open America be realised. May God continue to bless the United States of America; truly. Thank you.

  26. James Gnotta says:

    Yea Team!!!!!

  27. I disagree, no where does the Constitution guarantee any of the sort. It is a SECULAR document, the only reason this was done is because hospitals and insurance companies had a problem with the right of homosexuals being claimed as legitimate spouse and or recipient of benefits that a spuse would receive, that is discrimination. I don’t agree with homosexuals but still if the morals of the country have been altered due to the lack of Christian influence then so be it.

  28. Walter Cunningham says:

    Amen! Lead on Brothers!

  29. Will Winn says:

    I respectfully think you have missed a major element of the Unconstitutionality of this decision. This decision has, in itself, established a religion absolutely contrary to the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The Federal religion established is an Anti-Bible, Anti-Christian Cult. And, the most recent application/enforcement of this “law” in Kentucky clearly prohibits the free exercise of orthodox, evangelical Christianity, a violation of the free exercise clause.

  30. Will Winn says:

    The Apostle Paul in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans prophetically identifies the thought process of this aberrant court. “(J)ust as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done … Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

  31. To the legal servants of the APP initiative:

    First, your position regarding the Obergefell decision is precisely, completely, and entirely correct. The grand and impartial principle of the American Constitution which not only defines the limitations of the powers of government but the purpose for which governments are instituted which is to SECURE (and never infringe upon) the rights of the People has been flagrantly violated by five Supreme Court justices and their blatant abuse of their DERIVED authority. And what makes that abuse BLATANT is that they exercised an authority that was NEVER derived unto them by the People nor ascribed unto them by the Constitution.

    However, this is nothing new. It has been done several times before. The 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade which nationalized abortion across every single state in America was an evident decision of “judicial tyranny”. And after a 1986 case which struck down the requirement to even keep and preserve records of abortions, it became quite evident that the Supreme Court has attempted to REDEFINE “life” and now, they seek to REDEFINE “marriage”. And there are several other cases, where the Supreme Court has clearly overstepped their bounds without accountability or consequence. And this type of decisions will be made UNTIL THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM IS APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED.

    And yet, the root of the problem is not with the unelected justices on the Supreme Court. And even further, the root of the problem is not even the silence of the Federal and State officials but rather it is the general and alarming ignorance of the American people AS IT RELATES TO the “text”, “logic”, “structure”, and “original understanding of the Constitution”. Without this basic understanding, the American people do not know what it means to be an American. And when they do not know what it means to be an American, they will continue to accept un-American decisions, laws, or policies that do not reflect THE AMERICAN PRINCIPLES. And this, as we already know, is plunging the nation gradually yet rapidly into a condition that may be irreversible for I do not, by any figment of the imagination, believe that we are invincible or possess a special type of immunity to national disaster or even ruin.

    In the words of a late and prominent proponent for American principles that ought to be indelibly engraved upon the mind of every American:

    “It is absolutely incumbent on EVERY CITIZEN to be so well read in the Constitution and the Declaration [of Independence] that he shall know FOR HIMSELF the LIMITATIONS upon the government, and act accordingly. EVERY CITIZEN must hold HIMSELF, as well as THE GOVERNMENT, strictly to the Constitution. The Constitution is a limitation, not, indeed upon the POWER of the people, except in the prescribed way, but upon the passions and caprices of the people. This is sound AMERICAN PRINCIPLE. It is the fundamental principle of a government of the people.”

    And THAT is the root of the problem and until the axe is laid to THAT root then it is “neither extreme nor disrespectful” to say that, if we fail to be proactive in educating the American people concerning the Constitution and impressing them with such a sense of personal accountability in utilizing the resources we provide for that education, then we will simply be “beating against the air.”

    In short, my plea to you is to soberly consider planning, providing, and organizing an effective and deliberate means of educating the American People — with the utmost clarity and greatest simplicity — concerning their rights as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and delineated in the American Constitution.

    The American people need not all be legal professionals as yourselves are. All they need to understand is the fundamental principles that has made this nation a power to be respected and a beacon of freedom to be desired for the last 200 years.

    This is the only way that we may be successful in any of our endeavors. The American People need to understand FOR THEMSELVES the text, logic, structure, and original understanding of the American Constitution and the principles that guided the Framers of that historic document. And if they have been persistently and successful educated in this way, one thing is certain:

    It will effect public sentiment AS NOTHING ELSE CAN.

    In closing, I leave this quote with you from Abraham Lincoln:

    “Public sentiment is EVERYTHING. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who molds public sentiment, GOES DEEPER THAN HE WHO ENACTS STATUTES or PRONOUNCES DECISIONS. He makes statutes and decisions POSSIBLE or IMPOSSIBLE TO BE EXECUTED.”

  32. Tara Brueske says:

    Thanks for your insightful statement.

  33. I am all for abolishing the Supreme Court, they are unnecessary. The States can legislate themselves according to the long held morals of this Country and our Constitution. The 9 people have no more right nor knowledge of the Constitution and laws of the nation. They all have clerks to do their fact checking and they have law books to tell them what to do. They have no advantage over the States nor the American citizenry just because they wear black robes and die in office.

  34. Jeff Dammeyer says:

    Thanks to all of you ladies and gentleman! Where can we, the People, sign?

  35. Re: ” as it has been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife;” the Constitution hasn’t been around for millenia.

  36. We live in a Republic; our Constitution is The Law of The Land that serves to secure and protect our unalienable Rights that have been endowed to us from God, the purpose of which can only be what God intended.

    DOMA defined marriage in federal law as follows:

    In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. 1 U.S.C. 7.a

    Here is what Justice Kagan had to say in Yates v. United States:
    “…assigning “tangible object” its ordinary mean- ing comports with noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis when applied, as they should be, with attention to §1519’s subject and purpose. Those canons require identifying a common trait that links all the words in a statutory phrase. See, e.g., Graham County Soil and Water Conser- vation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U. S. 280, 289, n. 7 (2010); Ali, 552 U. S., at 224–226″… “But whatever the wisdom or folly of §1519, this Court does not get to rewrite the law. ‘Resolution of the pros and cons of whether a statute should sweep broadly or narrowly is for Congress.‘ Rodgers, 466 U. S., at 484. If judges disagree with Congress’s choice, we are perfectly entitled to say so—in lectures, in law review articles, and even in dicta. But we are not entitled to replace the stat- ute Congress enacted with an alternative of our own design.”

    One cannot change the letter of the law without changing the spirit of the law.

    It is unlawful for The Supreme Court to remove the necessary requirement for a marriage contract in order to accommodate persons who do not have the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, thus invalidating the validity of any valid marriage contract between a man and woman existing in relationship as husband and wife.

    Marriage cannot in essence be, existing in relationship as husband and wife, and not existing in relationship as husband and wife, simultaneously.

    I suppose one could logically assume that if the new precedent set by The Supreme Court results in a Court ordered implementation of marriage fraud, the new precedent set by The Supreme Court must be invalid.

  37. Cristobal Martinez Lozano says:


  38. yet you guys seem fine when the court votes in your favour, even if thats a 5-4 vote

  39. Sharon Stone Gibson says:

    Thank you ALL for standing up for our United States Constitution. I will join you in this fight…!

  40. Thank you for bringing some sanity back into the equation. Hopefully it will encourage Americans to stand up for their beliefs, and know with greater confidence, that someone “has their back”.



  42. Excellent. Thank you.

  43. Helena F. says:

    Well this seems to be the regular set of neoconservative Republicans. Snore.

    How’s sleeping at night now that you can reflect on the tremendous needless suffering you helped cause in Iraq, Dr. George? How’s your conscience feel about that? (Hint: If your conscience were well-formed as a practicing Roman Catholic, you should feel disgusted with yourself.)

  44. I wish this statement was open to signature by any and comers. I am a graduate of law school and feel that you have stated my thoughts very closely. Please make this available for others like myself to sign and have my name put among those who had the stomach for this fight.

  45. Awesome. Thank you very much. This statement is crucial at this juncture in the history of American jurisprudence.

  46. What this article failed to mention that any society, where a even a large minority adheres to principles espoused on Obergefell vs Hodges, will irrevocably self destruct, or lead to it, within a single generation.

  47. Bravo for these patriot citizen gentlemen. That any US Supreme Court justice should engage in this charade is abhorrent and a serious blot on his or her record. They should be impeached on account of this lapse of sanity and logic. They no longer merit their position.

  48. Virginia Schilz says:

    I would like to acknowledge my appreciation for this very compelling argument against the Supreme Court’s error in it’s decision. One very important thing that I find compelling is that the definition of marriage derives from a religious Sacrament of a genetilia union instituted by God between a man and a woman to procreate offspring. Love was not an initial necessity but a willingness of both persons was. My point is that as often as I hear that “separation of church and state” must be practiced, why does this branch of government think it has authority to interfere with this? Why do people who now days denounce Christianity even want to marry as this is a religious act. I would think that they only want to embrace this One thing to participate in, is inexplicable.

    Can anyone clarify how the Constitution defines a person’s civil rights can be used to violate the religious rights. I am not any lawyer or educated person, however as I understand it, no law shall be made that would interfere with the Church and it’s deeply held practices. Thank you. Virginia

  49. When there is a bad call in football, it doesn’t change the rule book.

  50. ALL OF US says:

    Thank you~

  51. Kathryn Scott-Young, PhD, LMFT says:

    Sign me up! I’m with you. Thank you for providing leadership and willingness to stand against tyranny.

  52. An Article 3 court lacks jurisdiction to revise the Constitution. Such decisions are void ab initio. This is clear. The more pressing question is what is to be done with this usurpation, ostensibly followed by virtually all federal officials, high and low? The Declaration of Independence offers that such a government is to be altered or abolished. What specific proposals are you advancing to undertake one or the other? Supporting pockets of non-compliance will not suffice to remedy the systemic defect–that we are ruled by the will of Justices, not by the Constitution or rule of law and as such, this form of national government must either be altered or abolished.

  53. Amen and Amen! I’m not a distinguished member of…. But I will stand with the names listed here and anyone else who wishes to support traditional, God-ordained and God-designed marriage!

  54. Francis Joseph Williams says:


  55. Lewin Barringer says:

    I agree with this. Thank you for organizing this effort to preserve our constitutional rights.

  56. Gerald Baggot says:

    Please add me: Gerald Baggot, JD, The John Marshall Law School, 2005

  57. Thank you sirs, for speaking up, and speaking out.

  58. Court supposed to ENFORCE, not CREATE laws…

  59. How can private citizens join in this crusade? Certainly we don’t have the political gravitas possessed by such a distinguished list of signatories, but there are millions of us with voices and votes. Sometimes the quantity of voices can be just as convincing as the quality of voices.

  60. Jean-Marc Cowles O'Connor says:

    You can add my signature to that, on behalf of We, The People.

  61. I totally agree, if We the American people do not stand up against this options of the Supreme Court then we have allowed them to continue to use their options to force us into un constitutional law making. The Supreme Court is to be held accountable for its lawlessness just as the president and his lawless cohorts. When are We the American people going to inforce our authority in regards to the government works for us, not the other way around?