Conservative Christians around the country have been trying to figure out ways to go against the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. We’ve had Kim Davis doing her thing. Politicians are making promises they (hopefully) know they can’t really keep. Now, the chief justice of Alabama’s supreme court has attempted to keep his state’s probate judges from issuing same-sex marriage licences.
None of these can work. It’s not possible for them to work based upon the Constitution. There’s nothing that the citizens, Senators, Congressmen, or even a President can do to directly oppose or reverse the decision. There’s only one thing that can be done. The original ruling must be overturned and that’s no easy feat.
To do this would require one of two things: a 3/4th majority of state legislatures amending the Constitution or a powerful ruling by the Supreme Court itself to overturn its previous ruling. The first option is all but impossible on this particular issue given the sentiment of citizens in the nation itself. The second is very difficult given the doctrine of stare decisis, but it’s conceivable under the right circumstances.
First and foremost, the balance of power in the Supreme Court must be changed. This would require the President to appoint new Justices, something that is very likely given that four of them will reach their 80s within the next two Presidential terms. Given the status of the country and the Supreme Court that oversees it, it’s easy to argue that appointing Supreme Court Justices is by far, hands down the most important task of the next President. It will have bigger and longer-lasting effects on the future of this country than any other action the President is capable of taking.
The next thing that would need to happen is that a case must be reviewed by the freshly-conservative Supreme Court that is directly related to the ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges. This, too, is not an easy task and will require the type of planning and intrigue that is rarely seen in a President. It doesn’t have to be the President himself that plans it out, but it would be extremely helpful if the administration was extremely well-versed in the series of legal procedures that would be need to happen in order to achieve the goal.
In essence, this is a one-time shot. It has to be perfect to have any chance of working. The timing would have to coincide with the appointments in the Supreme Court. The proper path of venues would need to be chosen ahead of time so that it would have the best chance of reaching the Supreme Court in the appropriate session. Those involved with the case would need to be compelling.
As our readers know, we endorse Ted Cruz. With that said, even if we didn’t endorse him for other reasons, we would logically conclude that he is by far the most suitable candidate to be able to pull this off. He would need to select the right Justices, of course, but more importantly he would have to engineer the events in a way that only one who has been inside the Supreme Court would understand. The most important factor in the appeal of Cruz for this mission is, of course, his history of arguing cases and winning at the Supreme Court level. It’s unique and much more difficult than most candidates can ever conceive.
The proper path here would be to attack the Constitutionality of the Supreme Court’s ability to make the ruling in the first place. This should be a state issue; even proponents of gay marriage who know the law and understand the Constitution are very well aware of this. It’s the Achilles Heel of the ruling. For this reason, it’s no surprise that making this an issue for individual states to decide has been Cruz’s argument since before the Supreme Court ruling was even made.
Everything else that is being done in protest of gay marriage is just that: a protest. The path to fight it with a chance of success is extremely narrow, which is why there’s only one Presidential candidate that has a chance of pulling it off.