With the Supreme Court decision regarding sodomite marriage, sodomites, their supporters, corrupt federal judges, and much of the liberal left clamor to shove “same-sex marriage is law” down everyone’s throat. It doesn’t matter that courts do not make law, that no new laws have passed in the States, or that the court usurped authority through misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. A Kentucky county clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in compliance with Kentucky law sits in jail for following the law and exercising her First Amendment rights. As sodomites cheer this absurd sentencing by the federal judge, an unintended consequence has arisen as part of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Hamilton County Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton wrote in his decision that he cannot grant Thomas and Pamela Bumgardner’s divorce because Obergefell v. Hodges redefines the rules for marriage, and thus the rules for divorce.
The current legal situation “leaves a mere trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandry,” Chancellor Atherton wrote in his ruling.
“With the US Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the US Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage,” he added.
After four days of testimony making the case for the Bumgardner’s mutual reasoning of “irreconcilable differences” for their divorce, Mr. Atherton concluded the marriage is not “irretrievably broken” and can be saved.
Regina Lambert, the attorney who represented the plaintiffs in Obergefell v. Hodges, told the Chattanooga Times that Chancellor Atherton’s decision was just a “statement.”
“Overall, Tennessee has had a fantastic response to this Supreme Court decision,” Ms. Lambert said. “He is just making a statement. I think change is hard for people.”
Well, this puts some lumps in the gravy. The big question remains “Is Atherton right?” For as long as recorded time, the definition of marriage is “the union of one man and one woman.” Based on that premise, States enacted laws regarding the issuance of marriage licenses, along with grounds for dissolution of the marriage, alimony, child support, division of property, and child custody based on the traditional definition of marriage. Similarly, family court revolved around the traditional definition. Despite the fact that no new laws have been created but most states and courts are upholding a “decision” as such, it would make sense that with a “redefinition” of marriage comes a redefinition of marriage dissolution and a revision of related issues involved in marriage dissolution. As such, if a court can redefine marriage, a court can rule on if a marriage is salvageable despite the declarations to the contrary of the individuals involved in the marriage. The Supreme Court appointed itself as the body to define marriage, overruling God and the States’ and people’s right to decide; therefore, it would only follow they would be the body to define divorce under the same logic.
Some would argue the Supreme Court did not “redefine” marriage only ruled that States cannot discriminate against same-sex individuals who seek to marry. If States cannot discriminate against same-sex individuals, it makes sense States cannot discriminate against polygamist unions, unions between an adult and a child, or human and animal. Therefore, in truth, it did redefine what was ordained as marriage for millennia with the black robed nine determining the definition.
Lambert claims Atherton is “just making a statement” with his ruling in the Bumgardner case. The Supreme Court in its ruling is “just making a statement” as well; however, people act as though their “statement” is law. How does Lambert know what Atherton is doing in regards to his ruling unless she has talked with him or has some psychic ability to read his mind? The fact is she doesn’t. But, why is Atherton’s decision ridiculed by Lambert while the US Supreme Court decision is hailed as some “divine” revelation everyone should follow without a change in the law? Why does Lambert appear to insinuate Atherton is ruling inappropriately in denying a dissolution of marriage based on “opinion?”
In traditional marriage, there is no question as to who the mother is and who the father is. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, skews the roles where children are involved. We all know sodomite couples are gaining access to raising children. No longer is there a mother and a father; but, two “mothers” or two “fathers,” meaning the rules regarding the decision on child custody and support, as well as other issues, requires “revision” to accommodate this Supreme Court’s declaration they define marriage and all that goes with it. Otherwise, judges are operating blind. Are there to be two sets of rules — one for traditional marriage dissolution and one for sodomite marriage dissolution? Would not two sets of rules create inequity?
Atherton, in his decision, is declaring his inability to rule on dissolving a marriage using current State law based on the law written using the traditional definition of marriage when the Supreme Court “changed” the definition of marriage without addressing the definition of dissolution/divorce. He is contending that it now falls to the Supreme Court to “define” when a marriage is no longer a marriage since they have usurped authority to “define” marriage and States are bending to a “decision” without changing the law. This is enough to make one’s head spin.
Change is hard for people; but, this is more than change. When a change flies in the face of civilized society, accepted norms, God’s laws and commandments, and leads to violations of individual rights, it creates a breakdown of society, which is more than “change.”
Is Atherton right? Is he following logic to its conclusion? Is this going to be an issue States will have to address? As it stands now, States are bowing to “decision” without changing the law while expecting judges, clerks and government employees to conduct “business as usual.” What do you think?