Legal Group Calls for Recusal of Supreme Court Justices for Officiating Same-Sex ‘Weddings’

Supreme CourtMONTGOMERY, Ala. — A Christian legal organization is calling for the recusal of two United States Supreme Court justices from a possible upcoming case involving the right of states to ban same-sex “marriage” since the women have officiated over homosexual ceremonies themselves.

The announcement comes after liberal Justice Elena Kagan, nominated to the bench by Barack Obama, officiated her first same-sex “wedding” on Sunday, participating in a ceremony for her former law clerk Mitchell Reich and his partner Patrick Pearsall. The event was held in Chevy Chase, Maryland, a suburb just outside of the nation’s capital.

“Justice Kagan’s actions are especially improper,” Kayla Moore of the Alabama-based Foundation for Moral Law wrote in a press release on Tuesday, “because she performed this same-sex marriage while a case concerning same-sex marriage is pending before the Supreme Court.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, nominated to the bench by Bill Clinton, officiated a ceremony last year, where she presided over an event for Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and his partner John Roberts.

“I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in the marriage relationship,” she said prior to the occasion, according to the Washington Post.

Ginsberg also stated during a recent appearance in Minnesota that if the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rules that states are permitted to ban same-sex “marriage” within their borders, that “there will be some urgency” to send the matter to the attention of the Supreme Court. Otherwise, she said, “there will be no need for us to rush.”

The court is currently considering an appeal from the state of Utah, for which the Foundation for Moral Law has filed an amicus brief. Officials in Virginia and Oklahoma have filed petitions to the court as well.

  • Connect with Christian News

“By performing same-sex marriages, Justices Kagan and Ginsburg have clearly indicated how they will vote in Utah’s case,” Moore, the wife of Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, stated.

She noted that the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 3(A)(6), outlines that “[a] judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.”

“[Ginsberg’s statements] not only tip the court’s hand as to how she will vote, but they also constitute a warning to lower courts that they had better rule in favor of same-sex marriage or the court will step in and reverse them,” Moore said, “And the words ‘no need for us to rush’ imply that she was speaking not only for herself but for the rest of the court.”

But she also remarked that officiating at a same-sex ceremony can also serve as “public comment.”

“Officiating at a same-sex wedding involves not only comment but also actions that speak louder than words and creates at least an appearance of impropriety,” Moore opined. “Litigants, lawyers, and the American public can have no confidence in the court’s impartiality unless Justices Kagan and Ginsburg recuse themselves from same-sex marriage cases.”

Many legal organizations believe that the matter of state’s rights surrounding same-sex “marriage” will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Nedd Kareiva

    It’s crystal clear how Ginsburg & Kagan will rule. It’s open & shut. Recusal is not an option. To allow them to adjudicate will clearly taint the high court’s ability to be neutral and thus discredit the American judicial system. The court should not hear this landmark case without Kagan & Ginsburg stepping aside.

    • Nicolas

      Yet Catholics don’t recuse themselves from contraception cases. Hmm..

      • Andy

        That’s irrelevant, because they may be a minority within the church. Otherwise, liberal judges would have to recuse themselves for being liberal and conservatives for being conservatives.

        What is relevant is that the essential issue is to do with gay marriage, and the judges have gone out of their way to bestow their ‘legitimacy’ to gay marriage, which is one side of the case.

        • Nicolas

          Yet they have ruled against contraceptives. Remember when they agreed with Hobby Lobby that birth control was an abortion. Although an abortion has to kill a fertilized egg and with birth control the sperm never reaches the egg. With that logic then condoms are also an abortion. But anyhow, again. Then that means people that officiate a same sex marriage can be the minority and not believe there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage.

          Oh and again judges have gone out of their way to show their strong opposition to gay marriage. Cough cough Scalia. Without hearing any arguments Scalia has already made it clear he will not vote for gay marriage.

          Oh and this is like Ginsburg’s third gay marriage. Yet. they were not calling for her recusal during Windsor v. United States. Again. they are just trying to get a win at the supreme court.

  • jmichael39

    It would be a legitimate argument ONLY if none of the other seven Justices have NEVER officiated a traditional marriage ceremony. Look, I think homosexual behavior is a sin. But we’re talking about the law at this point.

    • John Stefan Doud Morin

      Not necessarily the same thing. Officiating a traditional marriage does not, in and of itself, declare one’s position on homosexual marriage.

      • jmichael39

        Being a justice of the peace, neither does officiating a gay marriage. That’s the point.

        • Jud Bennett

          You’re both right.

    • verheek

      So when did man know better to draw up laws that promote sin?

      • jmichael39

        that would be a legitimate argument if our country were devoted to serving our God anymore. The people in leadership have long since rejected God…and His laws. Which is why we’re facing such horrific problems these days.

        • Jud Bennett

          If you’re talking about US leadership, since the beginning they served God in private when not acting as leaders of our nation. When acting as leaders of our nation, they served the people.

          What you should have said was that the people in leadership have long since stopped acting for the good of the people. That’s “why we’re facing such horrific problems these days.” not because of a difference in, or lack of, dedication to a mythology.

          • James Grimes

            ” that this nation, under God…” Abraham Lincoln, 19 November 1863

          • Jud Bennett

            How nice of you to attempt to twist an expression of Lincoln’s personal belief, stated in the Gettysburg Address, as serving God in his role as a leader of this nation. He called for freedom and a government of, by, and for the people. Words also in that very same speech.

            And you accuse me of stating things out of context. LOL

          • Andy

            To see how absurd your point is, please look at my reply to your first comment.

          • Dan Summers

            Thankfully a presidents personal religion has no influence on Constitutional law…or any law for that matter.

          • Andy

            Silly point! That’s akin to saying that a kid a Burger King is no longer employed by burger king because he’s ‘serving the customers’.

            He’s only serving the customers to fulfil his duty to his employer, Burger King!

            In the same way, a person should only serve others out of love for God.

          • Jud Bennett

            So you equate God to Burger King? I’m intrigued. Do go on. You’re amusing me to no end.

          • Andy

            It’s not ‘equating’ persons. I’m using an analogy of where people accept a principle, and then I’m applying it to the situation that the rather silly comment before me denied the principle. No, it’s not equating anything, and is not amusing for you. You’re just wrong.

            The point is this, that a person can serve a class of people as part of their greater service to another person. The PM of England is decided democratically, and governs within the House of Commons, but he is “Her Majesty’s prime minister”. Presidents should serve the people as a part of their greater duty to God.

            Besides “this nation, under God” is not only referring to the responsibility of the president, but also the people, who must submit to God.

          • Jud Bennett

            Yes. I did find it amusing. Whether you think so or not is of no consequence to the fact that you made me snicker even if you didn’t intend to.

            No person must submit to God. That it their choice if one is to believe in free will.

            If everything is predestined, predetermined, and set in motion by God to some divine plan, then there’s no point in debating it as anything we say or do is out of our control.

    • Andy

      You have misunderstood the law, I say this with respect.

      The number 1 law of evidence and arguments in court is that of relevance. It’s irrelevant that they may have officiated ‘traditional marriage’, because no one is making the case that heterosexual marriage is not legitimate. However, gay marriage is what is in question, and therefore, the Judges should not be or even appear to be biased or affirmative to one side, until hearings have been heard and the case decided.

  • SFBruce

    Scalia has made public comments which make it clear how he will rule should SCOTUS hear a case involving the constitutionality of same sex marriage, and yet I hear no one calling for his recusal.

    • James Grimes

      Has he performed a same sex “marriage?” That’s what the arguments in this article is based upon. Please don’t put up smoke screens.

      • SFBruce

        But the reason their participation is questionable, the article argues, is because that participation amounts to “public comments” on the issue. Scalia has publicly compared homosexuality to murder in an attempt to illustrate why the state has a right to criminalize its practice, thereby requiring he recuse himself by the same standard the Foundation for Moral Law argues for Ginsburg and Kagan. The expectation that all the justices would be held to the same standard is hardly a “smoke screen.”

  • verheek

    No mention of what God thinks of course. Never mind the years of civilization, these people on the supreme court are gods at the moment.

    • Dan Summers

      God does not matter when it comes to the law.

      • verheek

        How do you figure that? God established his expectations for us in the Bible and says we’re accountable to him. He owns the earth and everything in it.

        • Marie Adigwe

          But that’s a God from the Abrahamic religions, and there are thousands of other religions who follow different deities. What one person believes is real, another person may not believe is real. There’s no proof of which God is real, so only Christians are obligated to follow the Bible and its laws. Nobody else is because for now, divinity is based solely on belief.

          • James Grimes

            Who cares? We believe differently on this site and comments such as this one are meaningless. Sorry…

          • verheek

            Probably not what Jesus would say. 🙁

          • James Grimes

            27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (from Matthew 23)

          • verheek

            And that accomplishes what?

          • verheek

            There are lots of religions. The mistake is to say it’s the god of some religion. The difference is God is real. The proof is all around in nature, people and experience.

          • Marie Adigwe

            Nature doesn’t prove anything, and neither does people and experience. People experience things, including divinity, differently. To some people, humans are the highest level of divinity or intelligence. Nature proves nothing because it is not God, so it does not prove that God exists because there is no physical evidence of God in it, and people are just people, so they don’t prove anything either. I’m just saying that people shouldn’t be obligated to follow the laws of the Bible if they don’t believe in it.

          • Andy

            See my reply to your first statement.

            By saying that people have different beliefs doesn’t preclude the one that is true from being true. At a murder trial, many will have different opinion as to whether the accused person is guilty or ‘not guilty’, but no one says that it precludes the jury from a verdict, simply that there are many opinions.

            Finally, you yourself claim to know something about God. You claim that “Nature proves nothing because it is not God”. So the implication is that you believe that God alone is able to prove something. Do you think that maybe that your ‘belief’ about God may be incorrect outside of your ‘experience’? Clearly not! You just think you are right, and everyone who claims that there is only one God and that He is evident in nature, are wrong. But you are wrong, by your own case. Your views destroy themselves.

            If you think that what may be the case may not be for the other, then why do you bother trying to persuade others of your postmodern convictions?

          • Marie Adigwe

            I’m agnostic, which means that I admit that I don’t know if there’s a god or not, and I implied nothing. But nature isn’t god. It could be god, but for all we know, it’s not. It is something that was created by something. Other religions have gods who are omnipotent, timeless, and spaceless beings, but that doesn’t mean there is one, nevertheless a first cause. The concept of a “first cause” is only a Western philosophical tradition, but according to Zeno’s Paradox, we can keep retracing and trying to find the first cause, but we never will. There may not even be one. We don’t know anything about what’s beyond the universe, so to make an assumption that the cause is all of what you said must be a certain way is only speculation, but in reality, nobody knows. I don’t try to persuade anybody of my “postmodern” convictions. If someone is persuaded, that’s fine, but if not, I could still really care less

          • Andy

            All things that begin to exist, must have a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause.

            And the cause must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, since the cause was the cause of space, time and matter (the universe).

            God reveals himself in the scriptures, as omnipotent (spaceless), eternal (timeless), and spiritual (immaterial).

        • James Grimes

          Unfortunately, The Useless do not care one bit about what God has commanded. They would rather insult us for believing what He has commanded and that we live our lives accordingly.

          • verheek

            Because they don’t know him. Salvation first; discipleship second.

      • Andy

        God does matter, because one day you, the judges and myself will all die and stand before the one who gave us life, who told us what to do with it, who we have ALL disobeyed, and will be held accountable.

        God is the only Supreme Court Judge, because ONLY He is supreme.

        The final appeal is with God after each individual dies. And He has graciously revealed in His Word, the Bible, what we must do, and what is right and wrong.

        God is incredibly and extraordinarily important and essential to the law.

    • Elizabeth Neely

      they only think they are gods.

  • MC

    They need to step aside.

  • gaybasher420

    stop eating shellfish you fucking sinners, god will reign down fire and brimstone to all of you that dont follow the law as set down 6000 years ago that deffinately has absolutely no cultural references to the time when i was written

    • verheek

      Silly. How do you know it has no cultural relevance? What would you know oh enlightened one here since the earth began?

    • Andy

      You’ve clearly googled the little trivia you know. Because if you’d actually read the entire Bible you wouldn’t say this. You definitely don’t understand the Word.

    • Andy

      oh and go to creation.com to clean up your lack of understanding about the 6000 years matter.

  • Tina Taylor

    sometimes all you can do is to warn people but some are losing things like the ability to even get a driver’s license over this. issues with life insurance companies, spousal benefits, SSI and other things are affected by this as well and nothing has been done to iron things out in advance.

  • Nicolas

    This is absurd. Asking them to recuse themselves is like asking the five catholic men to recuse themselves in contraception cases. In that situation it’s also clear what their personal views on the matter are and how they will vote yet conservatives haven’t asked them to recuse themselves. And the statement about the 6th circuit says nothing. It’s a fact. If there is a circuit split it’s more likely for the Supreme Court to step in. That would be the case with all issues. And also, there is nothing higher than the Supreme Court so they do not have to recuse themselves if they do not want to. Conservatives just want them to recuse themselves so that gay marriage looses at the Supreme Court.

    • Andy

      No it doesn’t have anything to do with personal allegiance. Being catholic does not preclude a person from being against contraceptives, because they may disagree with the catholic leadership and majority. But endowing your legitimacy to gay marriage before hearing from parties and making a final decision does give clear indication of their preconceived stance on the issue of gay marriage.

      • Nicolas

        Really? Being catholic may not mean you are against contraceptives. Alright well officiating a same sex wedding may not mean you think there is a constitutional right for same sex marriage. There is a difference between not having a problem with same sex marriage to announcing you think there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage. Oh and Scalia comparing homosexuals to murderers and saying same sex marriage is immoral is also clearly telling the nation how he will rule but no one is calling for his recusal. This is just a sad attempt of opponent of same sex marriage trying to win at the Supreme Court. I am glad that a Supreme Court justice does not have to recuse if he or she does not want to since there is no higher power.

  • http://www.biblepicturepathways.com Dallas

    “As it was in the days of Noah…”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld6BM4FtUbU

  • Gary

    They won’t recuse themselves. Advancing homosexuality is one of their main goals. They are not about to pass up a chance to do that.