Text Size
A A A



 



Release Date:
 
You can use any combination of filters to list publications by key word, publication type, author, legal domain, concern and release date range.





News Article


US Supreme Court marriage decision is judicial tyranny
Saturday, June 27, 2015


“The US Supreme Court decision to impose same-sex ‘marriage’ on all 50 states is a case of judicial tyranny,” FamilyVoice National Director Dr David Phillips said today. 
 
“A mere five justices of the Supreme Court used their personal opinions to overturn the votes of 50 million Americans who opposed same-sex ‘marriage’ in referendums.  Their excuse was certain clauses in the US Bill of Rights.
 
“Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his dissenting judgement that the majority decision was based on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution – but the five judges who supported it failed to provide even one sentence explaining how the Amendment applied to redefining marriage.”
 
Dr Phillips said that Australians are fortunate in that we do not have a federal bill of rights. 
 
“We should rejoice that the High Court of Australia has already decided that the meaning of marriage is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Parliament, not a few unelected judges,” he said.
 
Chief Justice Roberts said in his dissenting judgment that the narrow 5:4 US Supreme Court ruling was an “unprincipled approach”, which he likened to the infamous Dred Scott decision that ratified slavery on the eve of the American Civil War.
 
Chief Justice Roberts also said: “This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. 
 
“Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving  force  of  world  history—and  certainly  not  as  a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians,” he said.  “It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.”
 
Dr Phillips said Australian federal MPs would do well to note the overwhelming 110:26 rejection of same-sex ‘marriage’ by the Austrian parliament last week.
 
“We should remember that the vast majority of nations around the world still uphold the complementary meaning marriage has had since the beginning of history,” he said.

Categories:

  • Christianity and culture
  • Government and society
  • Marriage and sexuality

View next article - New marriage poll gives different answers




 


Subscribe or renew
subscription



Give now




S M T W T F S
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30