Close this search box.

Supreme Judge’s Design for Marriage Under Attack

By January 20, 2015South Dakota
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As I was present in the South Dakota State Capitol this week, the issue of same-sex “marriage” began to unfold. I recalled how in 2005, CWA was involved in passing the South Dakota State Marriage Amendment in the legislature. We helped work out the language and lobbied the legislators to ensure passage of HJR1001 in the House and the Senate. Rep. Elizabeth Kraus, CWA member, masterfully championed the measure as the prime sponsor. It was then voted on by the people of South Dakota in 2006. Now, ten years later, I am writing again from the South Dakota Capitol when decisions and motions unfolded very quickly last week.

The week began with Federal District Court Judge Karen Schreier, located in Sioux Falls, ruling that our marriage amendment is unconstitutional and that it denies same sex couples the right to marry. She claimed that the amendment is a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

The case, Rosenbrahn vs. Daugaard, was destined to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, who put a stay on Judge Schreier’s decision. We were hopeful that the Eighth Circuit would rule favorably, since it is generally a conservative court and it upheld the Nebraska marriage amendment whose language is similar to our South Dakota language.

However, we knew that the issue of same-sex “marriage” would eventually get decided in the United States Supreme Court. Sadly, the culture’s moral shift on the issue of so-called homosexual “marriage” and the homosexual lobby’s growing power in our society continued to put pressure on the Supreme Court Justices to take up the case. Five circuit courts have declared state bans unconstitutional while the Sixth Circuit Court is the only one so far to uphold marriage as between one man and one woman. News on Friday revealed that the Court did indeed decide to hear the case in April.

Judicial activism is overturning the will of the people who voted for marriage to remain as God ordained it. Judges are also denying the states their right to regulate marriage law. These usurpations by activist judges have made a mockery of God’s institution of marriage and His design for the family.

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley stated, “Marriage should be defined by the voters of South Dakota and not the federal courts.” No matter what one judge in Sioux Falls or nine judges in Washington, D.C., decide regarding marriage, marriage will always be between one man and one woman as the Supreme Judge has ordained.