What does this mean for me, other law students and those who work with/for law? It simply means that we should first legally fight any unjust law. If an unjust, that is, unconstitutional, law is made, we should fight it: politically and legally; Legal service in the courtroom. But in a constitutional democratic country, the situation is different. I believe that in a democratic society, judges should decide what is right and what is unjust – or rather; in our Western constitutional democracies, we all have certain constitutional and/or human rights. Our constitutions, in my opinion, are as close as possible to the codification of the moral law, natural or divine. In other words, if a law is unfair, a judge should explain it that way. Moreover, the “people,” or perhaps I should say, the majority decide which laws are “just” and which laws are “unjust.” If a citizen does not agree with the existence of a particular law, there are several ways to legally fight against that law. You could organize rallies against your existence, you could petition against your existence, you could run “for office,” the list continues. If this does not succeed, that is, if each branch acts unconstitutionally, that is, unjustly, i.e. immorally, it can only mean that the constitutional part of a “constitutional democracy” is attacked or no longer exists. Right now, we, not only the “average citizen,” but also jurists and so on, have a responsibility to disregard these unjust/immoral laws in every possible way. Thomas Aquinas himself merged human rights (lex humana) and positive law (lex posita or ius positiva).   However, there is a subtle distinction between them.
Positive law considers law from the point of view of its legitimacy. The positive law is the law by the will of the one who made it, and therefore there can be a positive law as divine as there is a positive law made by man. (Translated literally, lex posita is postulated rather than positive law.) In the Summa contra, Pagan Thomas himself writes about the divine positive law, where he says: “Si autem lex sit divinitus posita, auctoritate divina dispensatio fieri potest (if the law is divinely given, the dispensation can be granted by divine authority)” and “Lex autem a Deo posita est (But the law was established by God)”.  Martin Luther also recognized the idea of God`s positive law, as did Juan de Torquemada.  And if you all agree, what does that mean these days? What are the consequences? Personally, I agree with his entire letter. I also believe that we all have certain “natural rights.” In other words, for me, there is a “moral law” or a “divine law.” His explanation of what is right and what is unfair is exactly the same as my ideas about it. Therefore: Personally, I agree with him: it also means that I personally agree that we have a moral responsibility not to obey an unjust, only immoral law. Clearly, DOMA and the states that passed their own DOMA laws were “only” according to dr. King`s reasoning. Nothing in Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Natural Law would allow same-sex marriage. Our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which form the basis of our government, have been greatly influenced by biblical religion.
As Joseph Bottum writes in his book An Anxious Age, “The religion of the West has given the West faith in a God who is different and above any human or social structure or nation. This has given us an understanding of the obligations to this God, which are also different and above the obligations to society and the state. I do not know if that view makes me a pariah in legal circles, so to speak. What I do know, however, is that if I live this way, I will protect our Constitution, I will defend (our) justice (system) and that I will always have a good and healthy conscience. Isn`t that what life is all about? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. but thinks differently. He wrote in his letter: “One has not only a legal but also a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility not to obey unjust laws. King`s response to the third accusation, that the moral legitimacy of his cause was undermined because he broke the law to achieve his goal, is deeply rooted in the Christian theological and philosophical tradition he knew so well. He recognized the gravity of the decision to break the law, even for just cause, and agreed that civil disobedience should be exercised with caution and regret. But to defend his actions, King invoked St.
Thomas Aquinas to distinguish just laws from unjust laws. In Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas explained the concept of human law, a legal form independent of natural law and eternal law. Thomas affirmed the primacy of natural law over man-made law, declaring that when it is “contrary to natural law, it will not be a law, but a corrupt law” (ST, I-II q. 95 a. 2). The result of such a conflict is that the law created by man “is not bound before the court of conscience” (ST, I-II q. 95 a. 4),, since human law is a determinant of divine or natural law and a lower law cannot contradict a higher law. Natural law theorists and others have therefore challenged many man-made laws over the years, arguing that they are contrary to what protesters call natural or divine laws.
 Dr. Martin Luther King goes even further to explain the difference between a just law and an unjust law: “Any law that elevates the human personality is just. Any law that belittles the human personality is unjust. In other words, in a constitutional democratic system, are there not enough legal means to fight against an unjust law? On the second point, King actually agreed with the Pastors of Birmingham that negotiation, not protest, is the preferred method of remedying injustice. But, he said, when one side refuses to come to the table, negotiations are not possible without catalyst. “The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so in crisis that it will inevitably open the door to negotiations,” King wrote. In his words, “A just law is a man-made code that conforms to the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that does not conform to the moral law. But as a law student, I can`t help but ask some questions: * Can we adopt such an attitude as law students, lawyers, judges, etc. accomplish? Shouldn`t it be the case for a judge to decide which laws are just and which laws are unjust? And shouldn`t it be very hypocritical politically and legally if we don`t give the same authority to people with a different interpretation of “just” and “unjust”? If we have the power to decide which laws are just and which laws are unjust, and therefore to disregard certain laws, shouldn`t people with a different definition also have that “right”? If we were to argue in this way, wouldn`t we open the door for fascists to break the laws they consider “unjust”? Doesn`t this pollute and destroy our entire democratic/legal system? Such a law is an unjust law, he explains. .