What national law was being referred to?

The Ask Around opinion article by April S. Kelley in the latest IR issue leaves no doubt as to which side of the fence she stands. But there are so many things in her column that are just so wrong, in my opinion.

The phrase “separation of church and state” itself doesn’t appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Thomas Jefferson used the phrase in letters to others, but the phrase has no legality backed by our Constitution.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court saw fit to legalize same-sex marriage across the country. So be it. The Court ruled in a lawsuit brought to it, but it did not establish a “national law” – only Congress has that constitutional authority.

“There were two questions before the Court, the first asked whether states could ban same sex marriage, the second asked whether states had to recognize lawful marriages performed out of state.” [CNN, 6/26/15]. The Court ruled, 5-4, that states could not ban same-sex marriage.

The Court ruled that the state laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. That is the only function of the U.S. Supreme Court, to rule on the constitutionality of public laws – not to be “the law of the land” as stated in Ms. Kelley’s first sentence. The Court did establish the right for same-sex marriage, but not a “national law.”

Ms. Kelley’s screed vilifies Judge Ruth Neely of Pinedale because “she [Neely] stated that she could not marry same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs.” Kelley continues her screed by writing, “meaning that she [Neely] would be breaking a national law by not complying.”

What national law is Ms. Kelley referring to? There is no law. The Court established a constitutional right for same-sex marriage.

Ms. Kelley further condemns Judge Neely in her screed, presumably for forcing her religious beliefs onto homosexual couples seeking marriage. In my view, the homosexuals are forcing their beliefs on Judge Neely. They are free to go to any state to find a judge to marry them. But no, it must be Judge Neely, who is allowed to freely exercise her own religious beliefs, unencumbered by law (First Amendment, remember?). Now the judge’s livelihood is endangered – is that fair?

I desire for Ms. Kelley to get her facts straight, especially in an opinion piece.