Judge Turns Marriage Debate Upside Down; Ruling Liberals Didn’t See Coming

Phoenix Rose

The marriage debate has heated up again due to the actions of Kim Davis, the clerk of court in Kentucky who has refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis has cited God’s authority and that she could not sign these licenses since it goes against her religious beliefs. Now that this simple act of civil disobedience has seemed to snowball, it seems others are taking a stand against this government overreach.

In a shocking twist that I am sure the liberals could not have predicted, a judge in Tennessee has turned the marriage debate upside down with his recent divorce ruling. Thomas Bumgardner, 65, and his wife, Pamela Bumgardner, 61, were married in November 2002 and have no children together, and now they are seeking to dissolve their union. The Bumgardner’s cite irreconcilable differences, and after four days of testimony, Hamilton County Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton decided that their marriage was not “irretrievably broken” and could be salvaged.

Atherton cited a few different reasons why he would not grant this divorce, but the one that stood out was when he cited the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.

Judge Atherton speaking in the Hamilton County Courthouse

Atherton wrote in his 16-page opinion:

“The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces.”

Atherton also added that the Supreme Court must now clarify “when a marriage is no longer a marriage.” Otherwise, he contends the state courts are impaired from addressing marriage and divorce litigation altogether.

In response to the unusual opinion, Regina Lambert, who represented one of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case, called Atherton’s ruling irrelevant. Lambert states that the Supreme Court’s decision is about marriage equality and not divorce, saying, “He is just making a statement, I just think change is hard for people.” Regardless of how Lambert feels about this particular opinion, this judge has shown the complications that must be addressed from this particular ruling.

Now that the Supreme Court judges have magically found marriage in the constitution and also redefined it, they will have to redefine when a marriage is over. It seems that liberals cannot comprehend how legalizing gay marriage has other unintended consequences, and now the rest of us must suffer from their judicial activism.

H/T [Times Free Press]