Posts

Tennessee Legislators Seek to Protect You From Judges

I want to thank some of our state legislators for taking a stand on a critical issue on your behalf that you probably know nothing about. Liberals and judges who hope to further transform our form of government to their liking hope that you will not read what follows.

Putting the Transformation in Context

To understand the next step in the judicial transformation of our country, you must understand the context. After 200 years, the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges asserted that the U.S. Constitution somehow gave it jurisdiction (power) over the Legislatures in the several states to redefine marriage. But then it purported to impose that definition on the states. Purporting to tell a state what laws it must enact was a huge overreach by the Supreme Court.

Now the question is whether that decision will be used by judges to assert jurisdiction over the state Legislatures to redefine what it means to be a parent and impose that definition on them. That very question will soon be answered in Tennessee.

When is a ‘Wife’ not a ‘Mother’ of a Child?

This question arises because of a lawsuit pending in Knoxville. Two “married” lesbian women are seeking a divorce. Nothing too controversial about that anymore, but what is controversial is whether the wife who is not related to the child biologically is the “mother” of the child. The answer is important because a mother’s custody rights have historically depended on that person actually being the child’s biological mother.

To obtain custody rights, the woman not related to the child biologically points to a statute the Legislature enacted by law forty years ago. That statute says a child will be presumed to be the legitimate child of a “husband and wife” if the wife has a child by artificial insemination with the consent of “her husband.”

Clearly, though, she is not a “husband,” so she argues that the Obergefell decision now requires the Court to “interpret” the statute by substituting the word “spouse” for the word “husband.” Sadly, Tennessee’s Attorney General Herbert Slatery has filed a brief in support of her argument.

Who Gets to Decide the Policy Question?

What our attorney general seems not to understand is that substituting the word “spouse” for the word “husband” is a change in the underlying public policy reflected in the statute. It is a change from a belief that complementarity exists between the biological sexes and that it has value in the nurture of a child to a belief that there either is no complementarity between the sexes or, if there is, it makes no difference in the life of a child. Worse yet, the judge in the case has already said that “no policy [is] being determined by the Court” in connection with this suggested interpretation of the statute!

Legislators to the Rescue

Because our attorney general doesn’t seem to know that there are two different belief systems in conflict here, and that different belief systems affect policy decisions in different ways, 52 state representative and 19 state senators are asking the judge in that case to let them intervene. They want to defend the authority given them under the state constitution to decide how to determine and address parent-child relationships in these new marital contexts. I am proud to represent them.

How This Case Transforms Government

You might think, “Who cares?” since you are not in a same-sex “marriage” and you had children the old fashioned way. Moreover, you may be wondering how this case affects a transformation of government. Here’s the answer.

Our attorney general, with the help of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, is effectively urging our judges to continue shifting the balance of powers in our government away from elected, accountable representatives to themselves.

When government’s power gets shifted from those you can elect and can hold accountable to judges who you really cannot elect and cannot hold accountable, then power has shifted away from you.

If our judges agree with our attorney general, then their decision will become judicial precedent for rewriting other laws, maybe one you do actually care about. With each such decision, our judges will effectively be shifting public policy decisions right out from under your control. While you watch the state Capitol for “bad” laws, the transformation of government itself is taking place in the courthouse.

If someday you find yourself completely powerless before a black-robed oligarchy, you’ll know why.

Thank God these legislators are fighting for you.

Read the Motion to Intervene


David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.

Invite David Fowler to speak at your event

Are Tennessee Officials Content to Ignore the Law?

It is becoming increasingly apparent to me that we have a number of state officials (non-legislators) and local elected officials who either don’t know the law or are content with ignoring it. An opinion from Attorney General Slatery proves my point.

I was recently preparing for oral arguments in a lawsuit I am handling on behalf of various ministers and residents of Williamson County against the Williamson County clerk. In the course of my preparations, I ran across an opinion from our state’s attorney general that proved the point I was going to try to make to the court.

The Background Context That Exposes the Lawlessness

To appreciate one of the points I was going to make in court, you need to understand what the lawsuit is about.

The lawsuit alleges that Tennessee’s marriage license law, which requires that applicants be a male and female, may be unconstitutional because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015. The Supreme Court “held” that laws like Tennessee’s were invalid, but despite what you may think based on reports by the media, that law was not part of the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision.

In other words, no court has “officially” ruled on whether Obergefell invalidated our law. That probably seems like a technicality, but that’s where the attorney general’s opinion comes in.

The Attorney General Says, ‘Obey the Law’

One of the points I wanted to make in my oral argument was that until a court rules that our law was somehow “amended” by Obergefell, no court decision has ever authorized the county clerk to issue a license to anyone other than male and female applicants. Until then, my argument was that the county clerk had to obey the existing law and that by issuing licenses to same-sex couples, the clerk was acting illegally.

It turns out that my view of the law is the same as Attorney General Slatery’s!

In 1984, the attorney general was asked if elected officials such as county clerks still had to obey a state law even if the attorney general had issued an opinion to the effect that the courts would hold the law unconstitutional. This is important because I’m sure our attorney general would say that our marriage license law would be invalid if ever challenged in court.

Here is what the attorney general said:

[U]nder relevant constitutional principles, the public, individuals, and ministerial officers [like County Clerks] must presume a state statute to be constitutional until it is declared unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction.

What the Attorney General’s Opinion Means

That means a county clerk has no legal authority to determine if our law is unconstitutional after Obergefell and certainly has no authority to determine if the effect of Obergefell was to judicially remove the language in the statute requiring applicants to be a male and female.

The attorney general’s opinion rightly concludes that only a court can interpret what effect Obergefell had on our marriage license law. Moreover, the attorney general essentially said that even if he tells the county clerks that Obergefell rewrote the law, that opinion is not a court’s opinion and the law should still be obeyed.

What This Means for Our Attorney General

After reading that attorney general’s opinion, I have a lot of questions. Here are two of them:

  • Why has our state attorney general not told the county clerks to obey the law until a court says otherwise? After all, that is the attorney general’s “official” opinion.
  • Why is the attorney general sitting out the lawsuit we’ve filed instead of joining us in asking the court what, if anything, is left of our marriage license law? Opposing our view of Obergefell seems better to me than being apathetic about the law being flat out ignored.

What This Means for All Our Elected Officials

But this question is the real kicker for me: Why hasn’t some state or local official brought their own legal action to have a court determine what the effect of Obergefell was on our law?

The only thing I can figure is that they either support same-sex “marriage,” or, more likely, being lawless is just easier for them. Apart from our little lawsuits, no one seems to care if they disregard the law.

I guess we’ll soon find out if even our judges care whether our elected officials obey the law.

Listen to the key exchange I had with the Court of Appeals about this point.


David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.

Invite David Fowler to speak at your event

Texas AG Takes Supreme Court Judges to School

I have really come to admire Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. After suing the Obama administration more than forty times in the last eight years, the Texas attorney general has now asked the Texas Supreme Court to stick to judging instead of lawmaking and to limit the reach of the Supreme Court’s same-sex “marriage” decision, Obergefell v. Hodges. In doing so, Paxton’s brief gave the judicial branch an excellent primer on the limits of its authority.

The Texas attorney general has told the Texas Supreme Court that the Obergefell ruling does not require Texas to apply all the state’s laws related to heterosexual, natural marriages to same-sex “marriages.” The point of the lawsuit isn’t whether the state Legislature should, for policy reasons, treat both types of marriages the same for all purposes, but whether the state’s courts should apply the Obergefell decision in a fashion that takes those decisions away from the state Legislature.

‘Sloppy’ Talk Makes for ‘Sloppy’ Decisions

The Texas attorney general’s brief begins with the following noteworthy statement to which I would add a hearty Amen! “State courts tasked with applying Obergefell should bear in mind foundational concepts of federal jurisdiction that are often ignored in the regrettably sloppy public discussion of U.S. Supreme Court rulings.”

Indeed, the public discussion about what the “ruling” in Obergefell did and did not do has been sloppy. In fact, as I’ve previously noted, it’s been sloppy even within the office of Tennessee’s attorney general. What’s been sloppy is the jurisprudential fact that it is the “judgment” of the Supreme Court that is key, not the opinions of the justices.

Opinions Are Not the Constitution

As Attorney General Paxton explained:

A federal court may or may not choose to write an opinion to explain the basis for its judgment, but every word of that judicial opinion does not thereby become constitutional law that binds other branches of the state and federal governments. While the judgment in Obergefell is authoritative, Justice Kennedy’s lengthy opinion explaining that judgment is not an addendum to the federal constitution and should not be treated by state courts as if every word of it is the preemptive law of the United States. (emphasis in the original)

And that leads to the next important jurisprudential fact that Paxton noted and about which we’ve gotten sloppy: “[A] federal district court judgment against state officials does not amend the Texas Constitution or the Texas Family Code. And it most certainly does not require state courts to act as if those provisions of Texas law no longer exist.”

In other words, there are laws in Texas that the Obergefell Court did not rule on, and they are still good law until some court rules that they, too, are invalid or the Legislature changes them.

Different Issues Must Be Treated Differently

Attorney General Paxton summed up the preceding statements by noting that state judges cannot confuse “what five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court said in explaining” the judgment in Obergefell—a right to marry case—with “different constitutional questions in a different case”—cases deciding how laws applicable to heterosexual couples apply to same-sex couples.”

For example, incest laws prohibit siblings, a brother and a sister, from marrying, ostensibly because of genetic abnormalities should they reproduce. But should we apply that “equally” to two brothers who want to marry even though they can’t produce offspring?

To allow marriage between the brothers and not between brothers and sisters because one can’t produce offspring and the other can is to treat them differently, arguably a violation of equal protection according to liberals. But to treat them differently is to recognize that the two sexual combinations are, in fact, different, an anathema to liberals. Can the Legislature treat the two differently, or does Obergefell require that they are treated the same?

Obergefell didn’t decide that question, and Justice Kenney’s majority “opinion” in that case can’t be mechanically applied to decide this different kind of case.

Federalism and the Rule of Law Are at Stake

The Texas attorney general concluded by emphasizing why state judges should not willy-nilly rewrite and reinterpret state laws to make them “fit” this new kind of marriage, which the existing statutes did not contemplate. “Principles of comity, federalism, and the rule of law should make state courts particularly wary of using the federal constitution to expand upon newly created substantive due process rights that have the effect of undoing the work of state lawmakers,” he said.

In other words, state judges should not abdicate the state’s rights relative to family law to federal judges (“comity” and “federalism”). And they shouldn’t engage in legislating from the bench (the “rule of law”); legislating is the “work of state lawmakers.”

What Will Our Legislators Do?

This session, Tennessee’s legislators will have a chance to vote on bills designed to prevent state courts from “undoing the work of state lawmakers” and help them stick to judging the law, not rewriting it. Let’s hope our legislators will stand up for federalism and the rule of law in Tennessee as well as Attorney General Paxton did for Texas.


David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.

Invite David Fowler to speak at your event

Legislators Address the Unintended Consequences of Judicial Policy-Making

The front page, headline story in The Tennessean this week was “Bill: Define mother, father, husband, wife by biology.” It has already generated a firestorm of controversy in some circles.

The bill sounds simple because it accords with what we intuitively think those words mean. For example, as a male, I will never be a “wife.” I am the father of my daughter and could never have been her mother. Even same-sex couples don’t “designate” one person to hold the “title” we have given the opposite sex. In same-sex relationships, both men are husbands and both women are mothers.

So how is a bill controversial that amends the definition section of the Tennessee Code to say simply that when judges (and others) run across these four words in the substantive law, they mean what everyone has historically thought they meant?

According to supporters of same-sex “marriage,” it is horrible because of the “unintended consequences.” According to them, the unintended consequences “could be great because of the number of times the word comes up in the code.” I agree about unintended consequences, but not about what they are and the reason for them.

Who Created the Problem?

The problem of unintended consequences isn’t the fault of the proposed legislation. It’s the consequence of the Supreme Court making public policy in June 2015 with its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

In that decision, the court disconnected biology and procreation from the meaning of marriage and purported to amend long-established marriage licensing statutes to require same-sex “marriage.” But it forgot (or didn’t care) that every other statute involving family law was based on the assumption that marriage was connected to biology and procreation. This is where the unintended consequences come in.

Because of Obergefell, everyone is going to have to grapple with those unintended consequences relative to these other laws. What are judges and school administrators, for example, to do with the statutes they have to administer that are based on the “old” definition of marriage?

From a judicial perspective, it could mean that all those laws are, like the marriage license law, unconstitutional. In fact, some judges have said as much. But, again, that is not a fault of the proposed law, but rather a consequence of what the Supreme Court did.

Who Should Solve the Problem?

The problem is going to fall disproportionately on state courts that have to grapple with the statutes that govern family law issues. A judge in Knoxville is currently being asked to redefine one of these words under the guise of “interpreting” the statutes. But if judges do this, it will just exacerbate and perpetuate the problem of judicial policy-making radically advanced in Obergefell.

The fact is courts are not charged, under the Constitution, with “conforming” the law to changing cultural mores; legislative bodies are or else the people, by means of constitutional amendment. That is why it is constitutionally correct and wise for the Legislature to tell our judges (and all others who will have to administer statutes with these words) that the words in question should be given their normal meaning. And it is wise they do so because of the larger issue at stake.

The Larger Issue

The issue isn’t, as some would suggest, meanness or intolerance. It’s about trying to salvage the rule of law.

As one justice on another state’s Supreme Court recently said, “If we cannot depend upon the meaning of words as understood at the time the words were chosen by their speaker or writer, the ability to communicate any idea from one time to another is lost. The ability to communicate any truth from one time to another is lost, and therewith the rule of law.”

That is what is really at stake. The U.S. Supreme Court, by its judicial policy-making and its willingness to disconnect the definition of marriage from its long-understood meaning, greatly accelerated the process of killing the rule of law. Justice Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell acknowledged as much: “Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law.”

When the next round of cases comes to the High Court through challenges to the definition of these other words in these other statutes, it will do one of two things: finish killing the rule of law, or repent of the judicial policy-making and constitutional revisionism in which they engaged in Obergefell and return family policy law to the states, their Legislatures, and their people.

Until then, we are all going to have to live with the ambiguity created by the unintended consequences of what the Supreme Court did in Obergefell.


David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.

Invite David Fowler to speak at your event

Tennessee’s Attorney General: ‘Winning’ the Battle, Losing the War

Not long ago I again watched the Bridge on the River Kwai. I couldn’t help but think of that movie when I was on the other end of the Tennessee Attorney General’s latest abandonment of our state’s prerogatives under the Tenth Amendment.

The movie is set during World War II. It involves a British colonel and his men who are being held in a Japanese interment camp. The Japanese are desperate to complete the construction of a bridge over the river that is critical to their military success. They are doing a horrible job and it isn’t going to be finished in time.

The colonel believes that he can demonstrate to the Japanese the ingenuity, resiliency, and engineering prowess of the British by building a better bridge and building it in a timely fashion. In the end he realizes he lost sight of the fact that it was a war he and his men were in, not a contest to prove their mettle or their engineering prowess.

And that, to me, is a pretty accurate analogy of what our Attorney General did last week. He lost sight of the “war” that is being fought between the states and the federal government, the U.S. Supreme Court in particular, over our state’s prerogatives under the Tenth Amendment. Instead he focused on the “battle” over whether a statute should be invalidated because of the Supreme Court’s same-sex decision last summer, Obergefell v. Hodges.

You might think that defending the constitutionality of a statute against an attack based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision is defending our state’s sovereignty. But the Attorney General found a sorry way to “defend” the statute.

The statute in question says that if a married woman, “with the consent of her husband,” has a child by artificial insemination, then the child will be the legitimate child of the “husband and wife.” Is there anyone who thinks that the word husband in that statute, when juxtaposed to the other person in the marriage who is obviously a female, is anything other than a male? Apparently the Attorney General does.

The question was raised because a woman whose wife had a child by insemination is now arguing in a case in Knoxville that the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision makes that statute unconstitutional because it only applies where there is a male husband. Maybe Obergefell extends beyond simply the right to marry to some new right to be a parent. Maybe it doesn’t. She argues that the word “spouse” must be judicially substituted for the word “husband.”

So, to “save” the statute from the possibility of being invalidated, the Attorney General filed a brief last week in which he argues that a Supreme Court decision last summer that redefines who can get married has somehow made a word that was clearly referring to a man when it was used 38 years ago ambiguous and susceptible to interpretation using the gender neutral term “spouse.” In other words, the suddenly ambiguous word “husband” can be “interpreted” in a way to make the gay rights community happy.

What he should be arguing is that family law, particularly that aspect of family law dealing with parent and child, is inherently an object of regulation by that state. That’s what the Supreme Court said in 2013 in United States v. Windsor. Therefore, Obergefell cannot and should not be extended in disregard of Windsor to usurp from the sovereignty of the state yet one more matter of family law.

But, no, winning the battle to keep a statute on the books is more important to the Attorney General than trying to win a war on our state’s sovereignty. It’s a lot like proving you can build a bridge, even if it helps you lose the war.


David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.

Invite David Fowler to speak at your event