City Councilman Faces Prosecution for Expressing Disagreement with Supreme Court Decision

Expressing disagreement with a court decision to change the definition of marriage in an unprecedented way is not permitted!

When a politician says something wrong and grotesque, the other side or the other party sees it as an opportunity. Now they can use what the politician says against him in the next election.

But when it comes to same-sex marriage, suddenly people are aware that saying the “wrong” thing is immensely popular. The Supreme Court has suppressed the self-government of all fifty states. Even if you agreed with the Supreme Court decision you should be horrified at such a patently illegal usurpation of authority.

So now Liberals have nothing but fear over voter sentiment. They actually need a way to punish politicians who take the “wrong” side of the issue.

Life Site News reports,

 Officials in one California city jumped to indict and officially denounce one of the city’s council members after he criticized the Supreme Court’s nationwide imposition of homosexual “marriage”, drawing a written First Amendment reminder from attorneys.

The Newport Beach City Council voted Tuesday, August 11 to disassociate itself from Councilman Scott Peotter’s email to constituents speaking critically of the controversial SCOTUS Obergefell v. Hodges decision, after the electronic message, containing an image of the city’s seal, caused an uproar.

The original resolution before the council called for Peotter to be censured and prosecuted.

Since the Supreme Court assumed priestly or prophetic powers to change the definition of marriage and describe male-male and female-female eroticized relationships as identical to male-female marriage, this makes sense. We are now a country where to speak against such awesome authority is to speak blasphemy. Heretics must be punished.

[See also, “The Supreme Court Decision: What It Means for You, Christian.”]

The council, acting like an angry mob, had to be reminded that this country still has a First Amendment.

The Council’s August 11 response was toned down from the initial reaction after the religious liberty advocacy group Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) intervened, cautioning the City Council against any effort to silence an elected official’s free speech.

The city should “abandon this ill-conceived, unconstitutional endeavor to chill and censor the speech of an elected official,” JPI senior staff attorney Matthew B. McReynolds wrote in a letter.

“It is difficult to imagine anything more at odds with the Constitution’s guarantee of robust political and social debate, uninhibited by government condemnation or censorship,” he said.

“We are alarmed that the prophetic warnings of the dissenting justices in Obergefell about efforts to silence traditional marriage views are threatening to become a reality so quickly in Orange County,” McReynolds continued. “Justice Alito warned that the decision ‘will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.’ … Further, we were warned that the majority’s reasoning ‘will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.'”

Peotter had to submit to being harangued for hours for his politically incorrect view. Admirably, he did not back down.