Rome, March 11, 2015: The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has announced in January that it will hear a case regarding a dispute in which the question of the “right” of individuals to obtain marriage licenses, regardless of their gender, arises.

The US media and indeed many commentators have been presenting the news in an exceedingly erroneous manner: they are saying that the decision is already certain or that the Court will use its judgement wisely, but none dare to touch upon the truth of the matter, namely that,

The Court hath no power over Marriage

It is a truth of nature and of Divine Law, that no court has authority over the institution of Marriage. This truth is taught implicitly by Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical, Libertas, n. 10, when he writes (bold-facing added):

10. From this it is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the State; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law. Likewise, the liberty of those who are in authority does not consist in the power to lay unreasonable and capricious commands upon their subjects, which would equally be criminal and would lead to the ruin of the commonwealth; but the binding force of human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law. Thus, St. Augustine most wisely says: “I think that you can see, at the same time, that there is nothing just and lawful in that temporal law, unless what men have gathered from this eternal law.”(5) If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society.

Thus, because marriage, which is an institution of nature, takes precedence to the state in both time and causation.  Hence, just as no state can exist unless there first be marriage, since every state is a society of men, and there cannot be a state without marriage.

Again, because God made made unto His image and likeness and He made them male and female, He also established that with the union of 1 man and 1 woman, their bond of fidelity remain unbroken throughout life. This truth is evidenced in the rational nature of man as much as in the physical nature of man.  For, the proper development of the individual requires that he have 1 father and 1 mother, that his father be a male and that his mother be a woman; and that the two of them give him undivided and stable commitments in being his father and his mother, in unity, harmony and love.

And just as the violation of any of these characteristics of a marriage breaks down the family, so, just as the family is the fundamental building block of human society, the violation of any of these breaks down the state or impedes it all together.

Thus no court of men has any power over marriage, since “to have power over” means to have the authority over an institution.  Since man does not have authority over institutions which have not arisen from human authority, courts of men must look to the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, the Creator, to know beforehand the unpassible limits and constraints which He has placed upon marriage.

Hence, a court which attacks marriage, attacks the state.  And,

A Court which attacks the State is at war with the people

Hence it is a high crime and act of treason, for any human court to rule against the nature or duties of the institution of marriage.  Such a court cannot define anything, but can only rule validly in law when it accepts AND recognizes the institution of marriage for what it is, as arising from the very nature of man as God his creator has established him in body and soul.

A court which attacks marriage, in attacking the state, is at war with the people. The citizens of any such state have thus the natural right and divine duty to arrest such judges and imprison them.  Their crime is a capital one and citizens can lawfully by natural right put such justices to trial for a capital crime, even if there are no existing laws for such such a penalty, because such a penalty for such a crime is derived immediately from the Natural Law which requires no human positive law to be enacted.

Thus, when such a court attempts such a crime, the bond of allegiance of the people is without a doubt severed toward such a court, and its decisions can and ought to be rejected.  Any human government or state which attempts to impose such a judgement upon the people, itself enters into a state of war with its citizens.  Henceforth, they can lawfully omit all allegiance to such a state, whether as regards the payment of taxes, the levy of troops, the enforcement or obedience of laws, but only if and to the extent that they seek to establish anew a more just order and a state or government or laws which are more harmonious with the natural law and divine right.

These words might sound extreme, but they are no lest extreme than the crime committed by such a court in such an affair of men.