Federal judges ‘subterfuge for judicial legislation‘
Pastor Emery Moss, Pastor Danny Holliday and Evangelist Janet Boynes listen during the Thomas More Law Center press conference announcing national strategy to defend traditional marriage.
A coalition of black pastors has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of traditional marriage in a federal case that upheld Michigan’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The Thomas More Law Center filed the brief at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the National Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian Leaders, asserting that marriage should be reinforced, not redefined.
The brief supported the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Deboer vs. Gov. Rick Snyder, which upheld Michigan’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman as constitutional.
The Sixth Circuit Court’s decision affects laws in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.
Thomas Moore Law Center began filing amicus briefs on behalf of the black pastors earlier this year as part of a new strategy to stem the tide of federal cases overturning the definition of traditional marriage as passed by overwhelming majorities of voters in more than 20 states. In many of the cases, a single federal judge was able to overturn laws approved by a state’s voters.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the center, told WND in September that he believed the black pastors could play a key role in deconstructing the argument that same-sex couples are being discriminated against in the same way blacks were in the Jim Crow South. Many black pastors refute that argument as wholly inappropriate.
“At the end of the day, of course, the Supreme Court will decide this issue. But one of the reasons we think this is a game changer is, much of the argument the same-sex advocates make is they refer to the civil rights movement of African-Americans in the 1960s,” Thompson said. “We have black pastors who were involved in that movement and are more familiar with it, and they say this discrimination is in no way similar to that (racial) discrimination. They have never had to sit in the back of a bus, never had separate drinking fountains, never were removed from lunch counters, and you could go on down the list.
“At one period in time, blacks were treated as property and gays could have owned black persons, so this comparison is totally without merit.”
Written by LEO HOHMANN
Read more at WND