Oklahoma MassResistance Pushing Obergefell Resolution!

 

In the Oklahoma Legislature: MassResistance’s Obergefell resolution has the votes to pass, but RINO Senate leader is blocking it.

Senator blocking it was primaried last year by her local GOP.

MassResistance activists in her district are lobbying hard to let resolution proceed.

Urgency as session concludes at the end of May. A big battle!

 May 24, 2025

 More than half of the Oklahoma Senate are co-sponsors of the resolution! But one terrible RINO in leadership is blocking it.

The MassResistance push to ultimately reverse same-sex “marriage” is successfully moving across the country. Shockingly, our resolutions in state legislatures get blocked not by leftists, but by RINO Republicans. (That happened in Montana, where the Republican legislator who buried the effort admitted she has a “married” lesbian daughter.) Oklahoma is the latest battleground.

Background

As we’ve described, the 2015 US Supreme Court 5-4 Obergefell ruling that imposed “gay marriage” across America was deeply flawed constitutionally, and two of the Justices who ruled in favor should legally have recused themselves. Justices Thomas and Alito have stated that the Obergefell ruling should be reviewed (as happened with Roe v. Wade).

MassResistance has drafted a bold resolution for state legislatures across the country to pass, urging the Supreme Court to revisit the case. It has passed the House of Representatives in two states and several other legislatures are in the process of acting on it.

Introduced and poised to pass in the OK Senate – but blocked by a RINO

Oklahoma is a true “red state.” Last month, in commemoration of Easter, the state House of Representatives passed a resolution proclaiming that “Christ is King.” So, the normal definition of marriage is hardly controversial there.

On May 1, 2025, State Senator Dusty Deevers (who is also a Southern Baptist pastor) introduced the MassResistance resolution as Senate Resolution 8.

 The main sponsor, Sen. Dusty Deevers, is the real thing! We wish there were legislators like him everywhere!

The 48-member Oklahoma Senate needs 25 votes to pass legislation. Sen. Deevers’ resolution has generated great enthusiasm, and has 25 senators as co-sponsors, so it would certainly pass. It should be on the road to victory.

But it is being blocked by the Republican Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Julie Daniels (R-Bartlesville). The legislative session concludes at the end of this month, so the fight is quickly heating up.

Sen. Daniels’ constituents angry she is blocking the resolution

This is not playing well back home. This resolution is very popular in Sen. Daniels’ district. Last month, her own county Republican Committee overwhelmingly voted to endorse it.

Sen. Julie Daniels is now more unpopular than ever in her district.

Sen. Daniels lives in Bartlesville, which has a very active MassResistance chapter. They have flooded her office with calls, but (as of this writing) she refuses to say why she is blocking the resolution. And that makes her constituents even angrier!

 Bartlesville MassResistance activists protest outside of a Drag Queen event for children in the town. (Yes, it's even come to Oklahoma!)

Her conservative constituents want this resolution fairly voted on in their legislature, and are outraged that she’s the one standing in the way!

This isn’t the first time Sen. Daniels has run into trouble back home. Her RINO stances have apparently been bothering folks for some time. In June 2024, she had to beat back three challengers in the primary. (Unfortunately, the conservative vote got split because two additional challengers had jumped in.) Fortunately, she is term-limited out and can’t run again.

Media going nuts

Even in Oklahoma, the media leans far left. Not surprisingly, across the country they’re all reporting this commonsense resolution as a threat to democracy and human rights.

National media

Newsweek: Republicans Launch Bid to Overturn Obergefell

Newsmax: Oklahoma State Senate Pushes to Overturn Gay Marriage

NewsNationNow: Oklahoma lawmaker asks Supreme Court to overturn gay marriage ruling

Oklahoma media

KFOR News: OK Resolution asks SCOTUS to overturn gay marriage ruling

The national LGBT press is especially steamed:

LGBTQ Nation: Oklahoma GOP legislators ask Supreme Court to overturn same-sex marriage

But there is some fun conservative reporting on this:

The Dissenter: Oklahoma Senator and Baptist Pastor Introduces Resolution to Overturn Obergefell “Senate Resolution 8 is essentially a manifesto of resistance, a line drawn in the cultural sand. It’s Oklahoma’s way of saying, ’Enough.’”

Final thoughts

This resolution has attracted a lot more energy and enthusiasm across the country than we anticipated, especially among state legislators. In a growing list of states, they’re ready to file it next session. It’s exciting. People have had enough! The LGBT propaganda about this being “settled law” is simply untrue.

But we also hadn’t anticipated that the RINOs in “red” states would be among the biggest impediments. This is a big problem over many important issues. Conservative voters need to be informed about their candidates!

The “gay marriage” fantasy will eventually be revealed as a fraud. This fight is not stopping!

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

MassResistance Book Review: "Supreme Damage"

 

How flawed US Supreme Court rulings over the years damaged our country: Explained in a powerful book by a MassResistance supporter.

Book documents the shocking distortions of our constitution over the past 130 years.

Obergefell is just one of the latest of a long line!

February 23, 2025

 This book should be in every constitutional activist's library. Background: the Supreme Court members during the New Deal (1937).

We’re all familiar with the deeply flawed Roe v Wade (abortion) and Obergefell (same-sex “marriage”) rulings by the US Supreme Court. Both have had destructive effects on America.

The Roe decision was recently revisited by the Court and overturned. And as we’ve recently reported, several state legislatures are in the process of passing MassResistance resolutions urging the Court to revisit the Obergefell ruling.

In fact, over the past 130 years there have been numerous flawed Supreme Court rulings that distorted the clear meaning of the Constitution – and have greatly harmed society. Most of us are barely aware of these rulings – while their ill effects continue. 

Now you can learn about them in an important book now available.

Here is the alarming truth about too many Supreme Court cases over the years: They have abused precedent, contorted text, imported foreign law, nullified rights, played favorites, and played legislator. Many are products of the idea of a “living constitution” (that must be re-interpreted as society evolves).  Bad rulings sometimes involved judicial dishonesty or judicial imperialism.

Thurman Smith lives in Massachusetts and has been a friend of MassResistance for over twenty years. He has written a powerful and well-researched book, Supreme Damage, that describes these problematic rulings. He accomplishes this in only 210 pages, wonderfully understandable by the average reader.

This review of 17 badly-decided cases that are still affecting us demonstrates how the Court assumed powers not envisioned by the Founders, in turn diminishing the role of representative government, the federal structure, and individual liberty. This book should be in every serious constitutional activist’s library.

Here are the cases Smith reviews:

United States v. Won Kim Ark (1898)
Changed the meaning and purpose of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to rule that when citizens of other countries give birth in the US, their children are US citizens.

Plyler v. Doe (1982)
Retrofitted the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to rule that children in the country illegally (i.e., illegal aliens) are entitled to enroll in public schools.

Steward Machine Company v. Davis (1937)
Allowed the federal government to  bypass the Tenth Amendment and tax businesses to provide New Deal benefits.

Helvering v. Davis (1937)
As part of the New Deal, re-interpreted the “general welfare” clause to allow the federal government to further bypass the Tenth Amendment to allow welfare payments to individuals and politically-motivated spending for local and state projects.

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)
Ruled that states can create minimum wage laws, which quickly led to further laws essentially micro-managing how businesses operate.

United States v. Carolene Products Company (1938)
Allowed laws that would appear to violate due process and equal protection, if they have a “rational basis” for their purpose.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
Infinitely expanded the interstate commerce clause to allow federal control of goods that never leave a state. (Also became a basis for allowing Obamacare.)

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
Expanded the meaning of the First Amendment to repress religious expression in the public sphere. Formalized the term "wall of separation."

Berman v. Parker (1954)
Allowed the government to use eminent domain to take and transfer private property to private real estate developers if it would generally benefit the area.

Kelo v. New London (2005)
Further expanded eminent domain confiscation of property given to private developers if the result would be increased tax revenues for the local government.

Bennis v. Michigan (1996)
Formalized civil asset forfeiture – the government confiscating property without charging a person with a crime, or any due process. (This is even used now in airports – confiscating large amounts of cash from travelers.)

Roe v. Wade (1973)
Created a constitutional “right” to abortion. (Overturned by the Dobbs ruling in 2022.)

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)
A federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous law is considered to be the permissible and legal interpretation. (Overturned by Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in 2024.)

Auer v. Robbins (1997)
A federal agency can legally interpret its own ambiguous regulations on the fly, rather than have courts decide these independently.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Ruled that anti-sodomy laws are an unconstitutional “violation of privacy.” This decision was cited as precedent in Goodridge v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health (Massachusetts “gay marriage” ruling, 2003) and ultimately to the Obergefell case.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
Ruled that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
Ruled that Obamacare constitutes “tax” and is therefore constitutional. (This reasoning was invented by Chief Justice Roberts. Even Obama himself never claimed it was a tax.)

You can buy the book on Amazon HERE for $9.99 paperback or $4.95 Kindle edition.

Final thoughts

In our Founders’ vision, the courts were meant to decide individual disputes between parties, or between a party and the government.

But the book Supreme Damage concludes: “The gravest error by the drafters of the Constitution may have been in not foreseeing that the Judiciary would slowly gain powers over the legislative and executive branches, as well as over powers properly belonging to the states. The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which a handful of unelected lawyers in black robes have the final say over major public policy issues.”

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Statement of Field Director of MassResistance on Idaho HJM1, Resolution Against Obergefell

My name is Arthur Schaper, and I am the Field Director for MassResistance, the international pro0family group that makes the difference.

On behalf of our activists throughout the beautiful State of Idaho, I want to express my gratitude to State Rep. Heather Scott and her colleagues for hearing this common-sense, straightforward Resolution Against Obergefell v. Hodges.

For too long, the United States Supreme Court has made decisions and imposed rulings that it did not have the right, authority, or even the power to implement.

First of all, two of the justices who weighed in on this decision had officiated so-called same-sex “weddings.” They were not impartial triers of fact or law, and they should have recused themselves.

Second, United States v. Windsor, a previous Supreme Court ruling, clearly established that legislation regarding marriage is not one of the enumerated powers in Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution. Obergefell never addressed that issue properly.

Third, The Tenth Amendment is germane to this discussion, and the Supreme Court should have respected the Constitution and respected the power to define and enforce marriage contracts to the several states and the people.

Fourth, our constitutional republic is based on common law, and for centuries, marriage has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman. The Supreme Court had neither the right nor the reason to undermine the fundamental tenets of Anglo-American jurisprudence when they issued their poor decision.

Other problems with Obergefell include its disturbing precedent that liberty and human dignity are gifts only bestowed by the state. Nothing could be further in conflict with our Constitutional norms or our Founding principles. The rights of men come from God, not the government, as declared in the Declaration of Independence. They are not gifts that must depend on the government or the state to be distributed. Such a flawed legal theory will only invite more government tyranny at the expense of the rights of the states and the American people.

Some will argue that revisiting and overturning Obergefell v Hodges would also mean preventing interracial couples from marrying. Nothing could be further from the truth. People are born of diverse ethnic or racial backgrounds. However, there is no evidence that individuals are born homosexual, and therefore such acts are behaviors, not identities. They are not civil rights.

Furthermore, in the ten years since Obergefell was imposed on the United States, an abundance of research has come forward indicating that children do indeed need their mother and their father. One of the poor reasons one of the justices gave to support redefining marriage was that he didn’t want children not to have their parents. But Marriage as an institution is not just about the husband and the wife, but about the rearing of children and the basic cultural underpinnings which make civilization possible. Children need mothering and fathering, not just mere parenting.

The State of Idaho should be commended for taking this bold stance, and I urge the House State Affairs Committee to support this Resolution.

Michigan MassResistance Filing Resolution Against Obergefell!

 

Michigan State Rep announces he will file the MassResistance resolution urging SCOTUS to overturn Obergefell “gay marriage” ruling. Leftists are livid.

Announcement inflames Michigan Governor & Attorney General, national & international media, LGBT activists

State Rep thanks MassResistance for initiating this. He declares, “Make gay marriage illegal again. This is not remotely controversial, nor extreme.”

January 13, 2025

 Michigan State Rep Josh Schriver is introducing the resolution - and isn't backing down an inch! Very refreshing among Republicans these days.

MassResistance’s push for state legislatures across the country to pass resolutions urging the US Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 Obergefell “gay marriage” ruling is gaining momentum.

Similar to the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling which SCOTUS recently overturned, the 5-4 Obergefell ruling (passed by activist Justices) was deeply flawed on constitutional grounds. And two of the Justices (Ginsburg and Kagan) legally should have recused themselves because they had demonstrated bias, previously officiating at “gay weddings.”

Michigan State Rep steps forward

Last month Michigan State Representative Josh Schriver announced that he will introduce the resolution in this year’s legislative session. That has generated the expected anger from leftists.

 CAPTION

Rep. Schriver continued, adding some interesting context:

Here is the most recent draft version of his Michigan resolution, currently titled: A resolution to condemn the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

The predictable leftist tirades

This is a battle against the use of judicial activism to force radical change. The hysterical reaction by the Left and the mainstream media highlights how crucial that strategy is to their success. They ignore the constitutional, legal, and historical arguments in favor of emotional arguments, LGBT talking points, and accusations of “bigotry” and “hate.” This reveals their realization of how weak and contrived the Obergfell ruling is.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (openly lesbian) said this:

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued this statement to the press:

Any attempt to strip away gay marriage is wrong. Here in Michigan, we protected fundamental rights because no one should be fired from a job, evicted from their home, or unable to marry because of who they love. Michigan is a place for all to live and work with dignity, and I'm going to fight like hell to keep it that way.

The media – from Michigan to the U.K. (including LGBT sites) – couldn’t hold back. Here are some samples:

Local:

Fox2 TV News Detroit: Michigan lawmaker calls for gay marriage to be banned

 Rather than do the Fox2 TV interview, Rep. Schriver gave the station a statement that they read on the air.

National:

CBS News: Michigan GOP Rep. Josh Schriver says same-sex marriage should be "illegal again"

Newsweek: Michigan Republican Wants to 'Make Gay Marriage Illegal Again'

International:

 From the leftist UK Independent news site.

Homosexual activist (of course!):

The Advocate (national LGBT news site): Michigan Republican calls for making marriage equality 'illegal again'

And the Michigan Democrat Party fumed that Republican leaders in Michigan weren’t publicly disagreeing with Rep. Schriver:

Of course, the gays took to social media with furious anger and profanity in their typical childish manner. But we’ve seen a lot of positive feedback on this in Michigan. People are feeling free to speak the truth again!

Final thoughts

There’s much more to report on this. We are making headway in more state legislatures with this resolution!

This should not be a shock. Throughout human history, the idea of legal “gay marriage” would have been considered completely insane. No one ever considered the possibility. The concept is certainly not rooted in our nation’s (or any nation’s) history and tradition.

Its acceptance today is a product of decades of constant widespread psychological “jamming,” intimidation, and skillful hardcore propaganda. Thus, “gay marriage” is like a house of cards and can be collapsed. If more people were to speak freely and honestly, the concept would once again be considered lunatic and fringe.

In our next report: Another state’s reaction.

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Nullify Obergefell--No False Marriage, Restore True Marriage!

 From the desk of Pastor Scott Lively:

This article is archived here for those who prefer to read from a website FEDERAL TYRANNY VS STATES RIGHTS ON TRUE MARRIAGE WND recently covered a story from the U.K. in which a public health agency has declared – with total conviction – that Christian beliefs regarding marriage are “incompatible with human dignity.” In America, and much of the Western world, public policy on the many variants of homosexuality and “transgenderism” has left the world of rationality and plunged increasing deeper into literal insanity. Normal people are being punished for “misgendering” those who invent new “gender identities” and matching pronouns for themselves; many young people are clamoring to be chemically and surgically mutilated; women athletes (no matter how strong their feminist credentials) are routinely suffering humiliating defeats by men in drag; and even conservative media have so lost their bearing that sodomy-based partnerships (like that showcased by the unfortunately named Peter Buttigieg) are applying the word “marriage” to them without challenge, with or without quotation marks. To all of this, I say “I told you so.” Elections have consequences, but more importantly, so does the logic of legal arguments. When you, as voters or through your representatives, stipulate in binding anti-discrimination laws that it is morally and ethically wrong to reasonably discriminate against the behavioral disorders (aka “sexual orientations”) of a militant, implacable army of political activists (instead of preserving sexual normalcy as essential to a healthy society), you are GUARANTEED that their disorders will eventually be mainstreamed. And, you are guaranteed that these malicious bullies will use their new legal powers force you out of the mainstream, exploiting your unthinking agreement that “discrimination” is morally, ethically and legally wrong. You essentially abandon the moral and legal high ground to your cultural adversaries, all to save yourself from the discomfort of being called a “hater” – by people who will never stop calling you that unless you totally surrender on every subsequent point. Despite intense persecution by the left, I have worked diligently to educate the conservative movement on these matters in several books, including “Redeeming the Rainbow” (my Th.D. doctoral thesis, which I converted into the only textbook ever written on the subject) and countless sermons, speeches and articles. About 20 years ago I boiled it down to a simple lesson called “The Five Stages of Homofascism.” These stages are Tolerance, Acceptance, Celebration, Forced Participation, and Punishment of Dissenters. Tracking and backing this cultural transformation had been the U.S. Supreme Court during the entire tenure of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s reign as the all-powerful “swing vote.” Kennedy, the worst enemy of biblical marriage in American history, not only wrote the majority opinion in all four of the landmark cases that established LGBT cultural supremacy over Christianity, he also paved the way for the normalization of pedophilia in his 2002 majority opinion that “simulated child pornography is protected free speech,” a fact I cited in my recent prediction that Mark Zuckerberg’s emerging “Metaverse” will allow pedophiles to indulge their perversions with virtual children in that artificial world, feeding their inner demons with real-world consequences. The LGBT agenda has always been the point of the spear of Cultural Marxism, and thus it is no surprise that the triumph of the putative Biden presidency is most gloatingly in-your-face in the heartbreaking, sexually dysfunctional parade of America’s children dancing willingly into the flames of Sodom as the demonic media and politicians applaud. But, suddenly there is a small glimmer of hope thanks to a bold conservative legislator in Texas named James White. White, who happens to be black, contends that Texas state law on marriage trumps Obergefell v. Hodges, the so-called “gay marriage” ruling, which was the pinnacle of Justice Kennedy’s LGBT championing-career in 2015. I have always contended that the Obergefell ruling is illegitimate and void because both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan performed “gay weddings” during the pendency of the case. That was the most egregious violation of judicial ethics in the history of the court, making a mockery of the bedrock principle of judicial impartiality every jurist owes to every party before the court regardless of their personal views or past rulings on similar cases. The White strategy appears to be an expansion of the states rights movement that has grown powerfully over the past few years as federal tyranny on leftist social policy has angered conservative states. This battle has been most obvious on gun rights and more recently “vaccine” mandates. But the battle for true marriage was encouragingly bolstered in October 2020 by the comments of Justices Thomas and Alito regarding a case that was actually unanimously denied review by SCOTUS on a technicality. As NPR wrote in a blind panic: “Nevertheless, [Thomas and Alito] said, the case ‘provides a stark reminder’ of the consequences of the same-sex marriage decision. By choosing to endorse ‘a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix,’ they said. ‘Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'” Right now, we’re awaiting an opinion by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and are guardedly optimistic based on his record. But the far left is not waiting at all, their attacks being led by the Lincoln Project – the LGBT propaganda arm of the establishment wing of the Republican Party – which I exposed as such last July. A pro-family victory in Texas would undoubtedly start a stampede of conservative states to follow suit (remember that 35 states and counting banned “gay marriage” before Kennedy nullified the peoples’ will by judicial fiat in Obergefell). So amidst all the doom and gloom, here’s at least one reason for hope and cheer (and optimistic prayer) as we head into the Christmas season.