[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9697-9699]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      OVERRULING THE HOUSE OF GOD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Westerman). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this week, there will be important 
decisions made here on the House of Representatives' floor.
  We are told, this month, the Supreme Court may well play God and 
overrule what has been considered to be the house of God, as given by 
Moses, for the dramatic amount of history, including up through the 
President's own statement that he believed marriage was just between a 
man and a woman.
  When he was running for office, apparently, according to his campaign 
manager or whatever he is--whatever he was--he felt he wouldn't get 
elected if he said what he really believed.
  Nonetheless, in 6\1/2\ years, we are told things have changed to the 
point we are now in a position to overrule what Moses said, which is 
that a man will leave his father and mother and a woman leave her home 
and the two will come together. That would be marriage--Moses, who is 
the only full-faced profile above us in the gallery, with the side 
profiles of all of the great lawgivers, the greatest lawgivers as they 
were thought to be years ago.
  I will also note that, as I sat and listened to the Supreme Court's 
entertaining arguments on whether or not Texas could keep our monument 
dedicated to the Ten Commandments on our State campgrounds--and it was 
joined with a case from Kentucky on whether they could keep their Ten 
Commandments that were posted inside the door--and as they were arguing 
about whether or not the Ten Commandments could be attributed in that 
manner, I looked up on the marble wall to my right in the Supreme 
Court's chambers, and there was Moses, looking down with both tablets 
of the Ten Commandments, looking down--interesting, very interesting. 
It is the kind of mental gymnastics that have been played in the 
Supreme Court throughout its history.
  We know Dred Scott was a dreadful decision, and there have been 
others that were poor. Sometimes, in being human, they get them right, 
and sometimes, they get them wrong; but there

[[Page 9698]]

is one thing that is very, very, very clear, and it is in the United 
States Code. It is United States law.
  It is volume 28 of the United States Code, section 455, and section 
(a) is very clear: ``Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the 
United States shall''--no room for question--``disqualify himself''--
that is generic, meaning mankind; it could be male or female--``in any 
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.''
  That is the law, and the only way that we can remain a nation that 
believes in the rule of law is if the courts that decide whether a law 
can stand or must fall abide by the laws that apply to them. If the 
highest court in the United States blatantly violates the law and 
especially blatantly violates the law in deciding a case, then is it 
really law that they have made if they have violated the law to create 
it?
  In knowing that the law is very clear, a United States Supreme Court 
Justice ``shall disqualify him or herself in any proceeding in which 
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'' Then we must look 
next to see if there are any indications of partiality on the part of 
any of the Supreme Court Justices.
  Here is an article that was published by foxnews.com back on 
September 1, 2013, and it reads the following: ``Two months after the 
Supreme Court's landmark ruling to expand Federal recognition of same-
sex marriages, striking down part of an anti-gay marriage law, Justice 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at a same-sex wedding.
  ``The officiating is believed to be a first for a member of the 
Nation's highest court.
  ``Ginsburg officiated Saturday at the marriage of Kennedy Center 
President Michael Kaiser and John Roberts, a government economist.''
  I was just out at the Kennedy Center this weekend--it may be the only 
weekend; I am here in Washington all year--and was delighted to be 
there. Apparently, if Michael Kaiser is still the president, he is 
doing what appears to be an excellent job there.
  Further down in the article, it is quoting Justice Ginsburg, and it 
reads: ```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,' Ginsburg told 
The Washington Post in an interview.
  ```It won't be long before there will be another' performed by a 
Justice. She has another ceremony planned for September.''
  The last line--it is not the last of the article--but it reads: 
``Justices generally avoid taking stands on political issues.''
  The rest of the article goes on: ``While hearing arguments in the 
case in March, Ginsburg argued for treating marriages equally. The 
rights associated with marriage are pervasive, she said.''
  Anyway, it reads further down: ``Before the Court heard arguments on 
the Defense of Marriage Act, Ginsburg told The New Yorker magazine in 
March that she had not performed a same-sex marriage and had not been 
asked. Justices do officiate at other weddings, though.
  ```I don't think anybody's asking us, because of these cases,' she 
told the magazine. `No one in the gay rights movement wants to risk 
having any member of the Court be criticized or asked to recuse. So I 
think that's the reason no one has asked me.'
  ``Asked whether she would perform such a wedding in the future, she 
said, `Why not?'''
  Apparently, the Associated Press also contributed to that report.
  It doesn't sound as if it could be any more clear that Justice 
Ginsburg has a very solid opinion that gay marriage, same-sex marriage, 
same-sex weddings are constitutional, despite its being something that 
is reserved to the States and to the people under the 10th Amendment 
for decisions.
  On September 22 of 2014, in The Hill, written by Peter Sullivan, an 
article reads: ``Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan officiated a same-
sex wedding on Sunday, a court spokeswoman told the Associated Press.
  ``The ceremony in Maryland for a former law clerk is the first same-
sex wedding that Kagan has performed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and 
retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor have both performed same-sex 
weddings in the past.
  ``Gay marriage has been a divisive topic at the Supreme Court as it 
has been elsewhere in the country.''
  Further down, the article reads: ``The Court could decide as early as 
this month whether to take up the issue again in the coming session, 
this time to consider a more sweeping ruling declaring a right to same-
sex marriage across the country.
  ``Ginsburg said last week that, unless an appeals court allows a gay 
marriage ban to stand, `there is no need for us to rush' on a Supreme 
Court ruling.''
  Clearly, Justice Kagan has made her feelings clear on same-sex 
marriage. There could not be a more clear, unequivocal statement that 
any just judge or Justice could ever make on the issue of same-sex 
marriage than to actually perform, officiate, in a same-sex wedding.
  Here is a Newsmax article from May 18, 2015, by Greg Richter: 
``Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sparked speculation on 
Sunday when she mentioned the Constitution while officiating a same-sex 
wedding.''
  Further down is a quote from Maureen Dowd, a columnist for The New 
York Times: ``With a sly look and special emphasis on the word 
`Constitution,' Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two 
men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the 
United States, Dowd wrote.''

                              {time}  1915

  Then it also says in the article, ``Nevertheless, guests applauded 
loudly, Dowd said, and Ginsburg `seemed delighted.'''
  For Justice Ginsburg to state publicly that the Constitution of the 
United States gives her the power to officiate and unite a same-sex 
couple in marriage is an unequivocal, clear statement as to what she 
believes the Supreme Court should do in their decision. If there was 
ever any doubt--and there wasn't. Once she performed a same-sex 
wedding, there was no question about her feelings on the matter.
  An article from National Review by Edward Whelan, February 19 of this 
year, the article, just a small part of it here: ``At her Supreme Court 
confirmation hearing in 1993, Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly explained 
that the judicial obligation of impartiality required that she give `no 
hints, no forecasts, no previews' about how she might `vote on 
questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide.'''
  As she declared in her opening statement: ``A judge sworn to decide 
impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not 
only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would 
display disdain for the entire judicial process.'' That was Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg in 1993. Apparently, she sees things a great deal differently 
now.
  Further down in the article, Edward Whelan writes: ``Human nature 
being what it is, it's not easy for a Justice to recuse in a closely 
divided case that she obviously cares passionately about. This is 
exactly the situation Justice Scalia faced a dozen years ago in the 
wake of his public comments criticizing a Ninth Circuit ruling against 
the Pledge of Allegiance. As Slate's Dahlia Lithwick wrote at the time, 
Scalia was `intellectually honest enough to know that he slipped,' and 
he thus, `recused himself from what would have been one of the most 
important church-state cases of his career.' His recusal meant that 
`the Court may well split 4-4 on the case, in which case the Ninth 
Circuit's decision will stand for all the States in its 
jurisdiction.'''
  We also have a quote from Justice Sonia Sotomayor: ``I suspect even 
with us giving gay rights to marry, that there's some gay people who 
will choose not to, just as there's some heterosexual couples who 
choose not to marry. So we are not taking anybody's liberty away.''
  Justice Sotomayor has obviously stated her position very clearly on 
the issue of same-sex marriage.

[[Page 9699]]

  This is an article from May 27, 2009, Lisa Keen from the Keen News 
Service. She says in an article: ``Long-time gay legal activist Paula 
Ettelbrick said she met Sotomayor in about 1991 when they both served 
on then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo's Advisory Committee on Fighting 
Bias. `Nobody wanted to talk to . . .''' and uses a slur for a 
homosexual ```person at that time,' said Ettelbrick, who represented 
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. `She was the only one on the 
advisory committee who made a point to come over and introduce herself. 
She was totally interested in gay civil rights issues and 
supportive.'''
  Evan Wolfson, head of the national Freedom to Marry organization 
said: ``From everything I know, Judge Sotomayor is an outstanding 
choice, fair and aware, open, and judicious. I believe she has 
demonstrated the commitment to principles of equal protection and 
inclusion that defines a good nominee to the Supreme Court.'' Wolfson 
said the President ``has made a strong and appealing nomination that 
should and will receive the support of those committed to equality for 
lesbians and gay men.'' The National LGBT Bar Association issued a 
statement saying it was pleased with the choice, noting that it 
represents ``more diversity on the bench.''
  In view, actually, of her quote, it seems that she has clearly stated 
her position with regard to same-sex marriage. Anyway, the article 
further down said Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal 
Defense and Education Fund, said the organization was pleased that the 
nominee is a woman of color. ``While women, people of color, and self-
identified gay people continue to be woefully underrepresented in the 
Federal judiciary, Judge Sotomayor's nomination represents a step in 
the right direction,'' Cathcart said.
  So, anyway, if those quotes are accurate, then certainly they would 
be supporting evidence of her quote that ``I suspect even with us 
giving gay rights to marry . . .'' she is already stating in this quote 
that she, not the Creator, not God, not almighty God, not the 
Constitution--``us giving,'' obviously the Supreme Court.
  So, as Jefferson pointed out, you know, he trembles for the country 
when he realizes that God is just and his justice will not sleep 
forever. It is not the Supreme Court that gives rights. We get our 
rights, according to the Declaration of Independence, from our Creator, 
and they are embodied or supposed to have been embodied in the 
Constitution. And yes, it took a Civil War to ensure that the 
Constitution meant what it said, and it took an ordained Christian 
minister named King to push peacefully until such time as the 
Constitution was more thoroughly forced to mean what it said.
  We are talking about marriage here. For anyone who is a Christian, 
that means they believe in Jesus Christ, they believe His teachings, 
they believe He is Savior, and they would have to believe when He 
quoted Moses, who said he was giving the law from God, and Jesus said: 
A man shall leave his father and mother, and a woman leave her home, 
and the two will become one flesh, and what God joined together, let no 
one put asunder. He put His stamp: this is marriage. It approved what 
Moses said was marriage, and in this Nation, throughout the Nation, 
until some said we have become smarter than we have ever been, once 
again defying Solomon's statement: There is nothing new under the Sun. 
This is not new. We are not more enlightened than other civilizations 
have been.
  But if the Supreme Court in a majority decision destroys the 
constitutions of numerous States across this Nation, and the majority 
opinion has Justices who are violating Federal statute regarding what a 
judge shall do, then it would appear that their law would be no more 
valid than if someone here cast the deciding vote on legislation that 
becomes law, and it is determined that the deciding vote was cast by 
someone who was not legally a Member of Congress. There would be reason 
to say that is not a valid law. It did not pass the House of 
Representatives. And especially, if it turned out that, say, 20, 30, 40 
percent of those casting the majority votes on a bill were disqualified 
at the time of the vote from casting a vote, that would not be a 
legitimate law.
  I hope, and since I believe in prayer, I pray that those Justices who 
have made clear by their statements and their actions that they are 
disqualified, will do the lawful thing and recuse themselves. If they 
do not do that, they will be casting a ballot, casting a vote, and if 
that vote is the majority decision, and if that decision overturns 
massive law on marriage across the country, and by its statement says: 
We know more than Moses, we know more than Jesus, we are the U.S. 
Supreme Court, it certainly sounds like they will have produced an 
unlawful decision of the Supreme Court. I hope they will not put this 
Nation to such a constitutional crisis by violating the law to push 
through their legislative agenda, but we will see. Will they start a 
constitutional crisis by violating the law to push their legislative 
agenda through the Court? We will see. I hope and pray that they will 
follow the law and disqualify themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________