Alabama Supreme Court Is Right in Upholding Marriage Protection Amendment
(Harrisburg) — In June 2006 Alabama voters overwhelming approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. Nine years later the US Supreme Court comes along and tells these voters that they were wrong and tries to convince them they have the authority to rip that amendment out of their constitution. Late last week the Alabama Supreme Court told the US Supreme Court that they, in fact, were the ones who were wrong and that the Alabama Marriage Protection Amendment is valid. The American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA) applauds that decision.
“In 2006 81% of Alabama voters said they wanted natural marriage protected in their constitution. That night returns showed the amendment passing by wide margins in both rural and urban areas, north and south. They recognized the dangers posed by so-called same-sex marriage and took steps to protect the foundation block of a civilized society. The US Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to redefine marriage in either Alabama or the other states that had passed Marriage Protection Amendments or Defense of Marriage Acts, such as Pennsylvania. They overstepped their constitutional authority,” stated Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA.
The US Constitution, as well as the Alabama Constitution, places all law-making power in the hands of the legislature, not the courts. The definition of marriage does not fall under the authority of the United States Supreme Court and is not listed in the enumerated powers in the US Constitution, thus it becomes a states’ rights issue.
“The Obergefell decision by five attorneys on the US Supreme Court last June was illegitimate. They had no constitutional authority to hand down that decision and, additionally, two of those five -Ginsburg and Kagan — had officiated at same-sex “marriage” ceremonies and should have recused themselves, but refused to. The AFA of PA is in hopes other states will see the light and recognize the Supreme Court’s unlawful ruling for what it is,” Gramley concluded.
# # #