Anti-marriage judges destroying public trust, says Staver
By Charlie Butts
In the aftermath of some 20 court decisions against state marriage laws and constitutional amendments, a constitutional law expert believes judicial boundaries have been violated.
OneNewsNow — The most recent action came when a Florida federal judge struck down that state’s marriage amendment, which had been approved by 62.5 percent of voters. A stay on the court’s decision has been issued, but Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver tells OneNewsNow, “It’s ridiculous when federal courts overturn the natural order of marriage.”
He points out that these types of arbitrary decisions from courts greatly undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
“The judiciary is on trial more than marriage,” he says. “You can’t put the laws of gravity on trial. Such laws are what they are. Marriage is what it is. It is part of the natural creation, male and female, moms and dads. They form the first foundation of government and provide the best environment in which to raise boys and girls to be men and women.”
The attorney argues that with the judiciary wrongly overturning the natural order of marriage, the public is no longer trusting the courts.
“When judges begin to cross the line – and I think they certainly do when they have the audacity to say that you cannot affirm the natural, created order of marriage as between a man and a woman – that ultimately undermines confidence of the people in the judiciary,” he explains. “When that happens, judges and courts all across the country will lose their power. And, frankly, the time for that to happen has been looming for a long time.”
Staver concludes that, in effect, renegade judges are usurping the authority of the people and of the other two branches of the government.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.