United States District Court Judge Karen E. Schreier, a President Bill Clinton appointee with ties to former Democrat Senator Tim Johnson, has taken it upon herself to attack the institution of marriage, the South Dakota Constitution, and pour contempt on the will of the people of South Dakota who voted in 2006 to affirm in our state constitution what every civilization throughout human history has understood instinctively: that marriage can only be formed by a man and a woman.
Schreier released an opinion today calling South Dakota’s marriage protection amendment to the South Dakota Constitution “unconstitutional.”
There are numerous fallacious and misleading statements in the judicial opinion.
Trending: Is the Church Becoming Too Political?
They have lived together for nearly thirty years and have numerous children and grandchildren.
They most assuredly do not have any children or grandchildren together. Unless there have been adoptions somewhere along the way, any and all children that came from either of them came because of a union with a man. It takes a man and a woman to create a child, just as it takes a man and a woman to create a marriage–the ideal and only real stable environment for raising the children created by the union of a man and a woman.
With the exception of being a same-sex couple, they meet all other requirements for a valid marriage in South Dakota.
Yes, they failed to meet a critical requirement for marriage. To claim “With the exception of being a same-sex couple, they meet all other requirements for a valid marriage in South Dakota,” one might also claim of a prospective union that
With the exception of being father and daughter, they meet all other requirements for a valid marriage in South Dakota
With the exception of being already married to other people, they meet all other requirements for a valid marriage in South Dakota
With the exception of one party being a horse and the other party being a human, they meet all other requirements for a valid marriage in South Dakota
Marital requirements exist for a reason. It takes a man and a woman to form a marriage. Two men or two women sodomizing each other performs no useful function whatsoever for society, and there is no benefit whatsoever in having government serve as a “friendship registry” for two people who want to sodomize each other on a regular basis.
the Rosenbrahns state that they have endured indignity and humiliation
Actually, these two women–who are not “the Rosenbrahns” because they are incapable of forming a family unit by themselves–have brought indignity and humiliation upon themselves. They did so by engaging in aberrant sexual behavior, and making their behavior public. They also brought indignity and humiliation upon themselves by deliberately attempting to counterfeit marriage in an attempt to assault the institution of marriage. No, they brought shame upon themselves with their own actions.
Nancy may be unable to inherit the couple’s mobile home park in the event Jennie dies, and the couple has incurred expenses associated with attempts to replicate the legal protections automatically extended to opposite-sex married couples
There is nothing whatsoever to prevent Jennie from leaving this property to Nancy in her will. That’s what regular people do when they want to pass along property to someone who is not their spouse or direct relative.
What’s more, if they want to enjoy the “legal protections automatically extended to opposite-sex married couples,” then they should find someone of the opposite sex (a rational and valid requirement for marriage) and enjoy those legal protections with a real spouse.
The same is true of the rest of the claims concerning the other homosexuals who are attacking marriage in South Dakota.
The simple facts are that these homosexuals are not being deprived of any rights, nor are they being deprived of any due process. They are entitled to the same rights and legal protections as heterosexuals. They must, however, conform to the same behavioral requirements as heterosexuals to enjoy those rights and protections. These homosexual activists have deliberately chosen to behave in a manner different than others, and have therefore chosen to forfeit those rights and protections, just as anyone who behaves outside the law forfeits certain rights and protections.
If these homosexual activists want to enjoy the benefits of marriage and all the legal protections that come with it, they need to find a suitable marriage partner (i.e. someone of legal age, not a close relative, not married to someone else, who consents, and is of the opposite sex) and marry them. These activists have deliberately chosen NOT to do that.
If you want to be recognized as a fireman, you have to complete the proper application process, fulfill the hiring requirements, and complete the proper training to become one. You don’t get to call yourself a fireman just because you want to be one.
If you want to purchase $20 worth of goods in a store, you have to legitimately earn $20 in currency and present that legitimate currency to the store. You don’t get to hand the store a gum wrapper or maple leaf and demand that they accept it as if it were $20.
Contrary to the assertions of homosexual activist and activist judges, there remain a multitude of scientific and practical reasons to oppose acceptance of this behavior. They include:
- Homosexual behavior is contrary to science (i.e. it is contrary to the obvious function of the involved body parts, and does nothing to perpetuate the organism)
- Homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural function of the body (see previous)
- Homosexual behavior is aberrant (less than 3% of the population self-identifies as homosexual)
- Homosexual behavior carries numerous and extreme health risks
- The unique and practical function of marriage is not a “friendship registry” or to join two people with mutual affection together (the state has no interest in such); rather, marriage is at its heart about children, their creation, nurturing, and preparation to become healthy members of society
- Marriage can only be naturally formed between a man and a woman; two men or two women lack the parts to join two bodies together in a functioning and complimentary fashion.
- Marriage between a man and a woman is the only natural means by which to create the next generation of society
- Marriage between a man and a woman provides the only environment that provides the stable and balanced environment necessary for raising healthy children into adulthood
- This environment models both behaviors that are unique to both males and females
- This environment provides the nurturing elements that can best be provided to children only by males and females
- This environment provides a setting for the modeling of males and females working together in a complimentary fashion
- Absence of this environment sends the message to the child that one or the other sex is either unnecessary or undesirable, or both
- Homosexual relationships are wrought with the aforementioned health risks, as well as increased instances of substance abuse, mental and emotional problems, anxiety, depression and suicide–not an ideal environment for children
- Homosexual relationships are seldom monogamous, even in so-called “committed relationships. An environment where “committed” members of the “family” are coming and going, or outside members are being introduced for transient sexual opportunities, is not a stable environment for raising healthy children
- Study after study after study has found that a stable, healthy home life is absolutely essential to the welfare of children in many areas: academic, mental and emotional, juvenile delinquency, lawbreaking, poverty, etc.
- The breakdown of the family costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year. How much more prosperous could America be if we weren’t wasting billions to deal with the problems listed in the last point–problems which could be avoided by strengthening a healthy family environment.
This kind of judicial activism, perversion of the U.S. Constitution (intended to prevent Democrats from undermining morality and the rule of law), the South Dakota Constitution, and pure contempt for the people of South Dakota and our republican form of government (which does NOT empower judges to make law), should not be allowed to stand.
What’s more, while counterfeit marriage is bad enough in and of itself, it also serves as a battering ram against still more freedom, namely the first freedom of the First Amendment: religious liberty. This is something certain people in our government told us last year was in no danger and faced no threat…yet here we are, less than a year later, with marriage itself on the verge of being toppled over by an activist judge in South Dakota.
By the way, South Dakota officials are under no legal, constititonal or moral obligation to act (or not act, depending on the perspective) on illegal and unconstititonal edicts such as this. They are no more compelled to act on illegal orders (especially by people not empowered by our constitutional form of government to craft law) than a soldier is compelled to obey unlawful or immoral orders.
Whether South Dakota officials have the guts to act (or not act) on this truth, remains to be seen.
It’s about time some of our leaders got in touch with the spirit of the American Revolution and stopped paying homage to “pretended legislation.” In fact, such “pretended legislation” deserves nothing but the complete contempt of good people.
The good people of South Dakota, as well as the numerous pro-family groups of our state, should call on our federal representatives (Senator John Thune, Senator Mike Rounds, and Rep. Kristi Noem) to immediately begin impeachment actions to remove this judicial activist from the bench. South Dakota’s ovewhelmingly-Republican government should also publicly condemn this judicial activism and join in the call for Schreier’s impeachment and removal from office.
Additionally, our federal representatives should introduce legislation to prevent activist judges from ever interfering with marriage again, as congress is empowered to do by Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.