The irony of setting law by Supreme Court

For the last several weeks, I have followed the many opinion letters submitted regarding Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples because of religious objections.

Although some letters supported her decision, most simply put the court's legal decision above her religious decision and demanded that she resign from her position if she could not follow "the law."

I ask that we all consider the following. The First Amendment to our Constitution prohibits government from passing any law to establish a particular set of religious beliefs as law and stops government from passing any law obstructing the free exercise of religion by its citizens.

Secondly, Article I, Section 9 prohibits passage of any ex post facto laws (changing the consequences of a prior law after the fact).

Thirdly, the new Supreme Court decision expands the legal definition of marriage beyond one man and one woman. Many who favor the new decision proclaim that it is now "the law of the land" despite the fact that the decision meets the definition of ex post facto. If Congress does not have the right to pass such a law, how can the judicial branch assume this right?

Finally, it was another Supreme Court at an earlier time which ruled, also by a 5 to 4 majority, that a runaway slave who had fled to Illinois (where slavery was not legal) was the property of his owner and had to be returned to his master in a state where slavery was legal. Was this a bad decision in truth or was it a good decision up until it was voided by the 14th Amendment?

Why is it that common sense and the natural law so often disagree with our legal system?

Charles E. Glomski

Elk Grove Village