All of us as individuals have First Amendment rights

In response to the opinion column by April Kelley I would offer the following comments: The U.S. Supreme court is NOT the Law of the Land. The Constitution is the law of the land. The U.S. Supreme Court is there to offer opinions and judgments, when required, to settle disputes that arise in the United States.

Statements cannot be made and then base a whole argument when said statement is opinion. The premise of Ms. Kelley’s column is false. Supreme Court Justice Scalia said negatively in the 4 to 5 ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges, regarding the power of the Supreme Court to make a decision that it has “… a naked judicial claim to legislative — indeed, super-legislative — power.” Furthermore, whatever the decision, the Supreme Court did not overturn the First Amendment

Regarding Judge Ruth Neely: She is a Pinedale Municipal Judge. As such she is under the ruling of the State of Wyoming laws and said laws in “W.S. 5-9-208 section (c)” delineates the law. It states that as a full time municipal judge she “may” perform marriages. Elsewhere in the definitions of the Wyoming Statutes is clearly makes distinction that the words “shall” and “may” are interpreted as “shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive. Thus the statement that if Judge Neely were to not marry a same-sex couple, she is not breaking the law, as Ms. Kelley declared. It is not required of her to perform such duty.

We seem to have lost the perspective that all of us as individuals have First Amendment rights. And, Judge Neely does have her private right to her religious beliefs. She is not and has not violated her code of conduct as a Municipal Judge. It is important that we clearly understand that Judge Neely was asked by a newspaper reporter how she felt about being able to marry same sex couples. It was her right under the First Amendment to state how she felt. She did not and has not been charged with violation of any statute.

Taking the column in its written order, Thomas Jefferson was quoted regarding separation of church and state. There is so much misinformation about this that it is necessary to state where that term came from. Jefferson wrote a letter to the the Danbury Baptists and made this statement in the letter. “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

Careful reading will reveal that the phrase “separation between church and state” expresses that Congress shall not make a state religion. Our First Amendment says in summary: “Prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.”

We seem to want to throw the statement “separation of church and state” out every time something comes up about religion. Jefferson believed in maximizing religious liberty, and getting the government to stop promoting specific denominations and policing people’s personal beliefs. What we have today is a movement to take any religion or mention of God out of government altogether. That was not the intent of our founding fathers. The Constitution is to keep government out of the church, not as we see being promoted today, to keep the church out of government. Religion will affect government because it is what makes man. Men are either without or with God in their values. The phrase “...not to mix politics or religion,” cannot be substantiated. If you are a person of God or not a person of God, it will show in your politics … how you view government.

Moving on in the column: Judge Neely did not refuse to marry same sex couples. She was asked a personal question and answered it under her First Amendment right. In a column like this, making statements that are not true is very deceiving. Then to pass judgment on Judge Neely saying she is biased is in itself bias. Further judgment comes concerning the illustration of how she might act, when in fact you don’t know, because the previous illustrations/scenarios are incorrect. Following the logic presented against Judge Neely in Ms. Kelley’s opinion piece, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be dismissed because of opinions she made concerning a presidential nominee. We still have our First Amendment rights, religious or not.

Absolutely we are accountable for breaking the law, religious belief or no. We are also accountable for accurate statements. I have chewed on this and could not swallow the column because it fell short of truth.