In Defense of Marriage; The Reports of the Dissenting Supreme Court Judges in the Case Allowing Same-Sex Marriage and Why Their Conclusions Matter

Image: https://adjustingyoursail.wordpress.com/page/2/

In Defense of Marriage; The Reports of the Dissenting Supreme Court Judges in the Case Allowing Same-Sex Marriage and Why Their Conclusions Matter

The ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning same-sex marriage back in 2015 was very close. There are nine Supreme Court judges, and of those nine, five ruled in favor of the nation to recognize same-sex unions as marriages. The argument of the majority-voting judges was that marriage gives people “recognition, stability, and predictability” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). These judges were concerned that by not allowing gays to marry that the children being raised in these households were being told that their families were “somehow lesser” (Obergefell vs. Hodges, 2015). The material costs of raising a child in a two- parent home where the parents are classified as “single” on tax forms create a financial burden on the family. Lastly, they were concerned about humiliating these families.

All of this sounds really considerate and compassionate on paper. However, many facts were pushed aside in this case. One of the major ones being that the judicial branch of the government has no power to create or enact laws. That is the duty of the legislative branch, which includes the Senate and The House of Representatives: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives” (The Constitution of the United States, Article 1). The founding fathers ensured that each branch of government would be a check and balance to ensure that not one branch has more power than the others and become corruptible.

The job of the judicial branch is to interpret whether or not a legal matter is constitutional. They may also take care of cases such as treason or cases not resolvable by lower courts. They cannot create a new law and force it on any person, state, or the country as a whole. Plus, as these judges are not elected by the people, they do not have the ability to represent the people in a fair, unbiased way, they are only to interpret the law as it pertains the Constitution. 

Image:https://statesymbolsusa.org/sites/statesymbolsusa.org/files/primary-images/USconstitutionWeThePeople.jpg

 

There is a power in the states themselves that allows them to make their own laws: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (Amendment 10).  This means that if the voters of a state vote on a bill and it passes, it gets signed into law for that state. 32 out of 35 states in the United States voted into law that marriage is legal between one man and one woman and none else. Now, with the ruling of the Supreme Court, they have effectively taken away the right of the states to make and enforce their own laws ratified by the voters of that state, which goes against the Constitution and the rights of the states themselves.

The voices of the four dissenting judges determining the case argue such in their dissenting reports in this case. These reports were barely aired by the media and were quickly hushed. There is a problem with this. What was the media hiding? 

 In the report concerning Obergefell v. Hodges, Chief Justice John Roberts is the first to give his dissenting view. These are some of the snippets of that 29-page report:

 Image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Official_roberts_CJ.jpg/220px-Official_roberts_CJ.jpg

 

•      “This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history—and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship. See G. Quale, A History of Marriage Systems 2 (1988) . . . " (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015).

•       “Society has recognized that bond as marriage. And by bestowing a respected status and material benefits on married couples, society encourages men and women to conduct sexual relations within marriage rather than without. As one prominent scholar put it, “Marriage is a socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people to stay together and care for children that the mere desire for children, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve.” J. Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem 41 (2002)” (Obergefell Vs. Hodges 2015).

•      “Neither petitioners nor the majority cites a single case or other legal source providing any basis for such a constitutional right. None exists, and that is enough to foreclose their claim.”

•      “Unlike criminal laws banning contraceptives and sodomy, the marriage laws at issue here involve no government intrusion. They create no crime and impose no punishment. Same-sex couples remain free to live together, to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their families as they see fit. No one is ‘condemned to live in loneliness’ by the laws challenged in these cases—no one. Ante, at 28. At the same time, the laws in no way interfere with the ‘right to be let alone.’” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015).

•      “. . . The privacy cases provide no support for the majority’s position, because petitioners do not seek privacy. Quite the opposite, they seek public recognition of their relationships, along with corresponding government benefits. Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements from the State. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189, 196 (1989); San Antonio Independent School Dist.v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 35–37 (1973); post, at 9–13 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Thus, although the right to privacy recognized by our precedents certainly plays a role in protecting the intimate conduct of same-sex couples, it provides no affirmative right to redefine marriage and no basis for striking down the laws at issue here” (Obergefell Vs. Hodges, 2015).

Justice Antonin Scalia (deceased) had this to say:

 Image:https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Justice%20Scalia.jpg

•      (Summarized) The Supreme Court justices are not elected, neither do they represent the majority of American people. 4 of them are from New York. One from California. Only one of the judges comes from the Midwest, the others are from coastal cities, and none of them come from the deep south or from out west (California is not representative of western values). Additionally, none of the judges come from an evangelical or protestant background. This is a problem because a large population of Americans are either evangelicals or protestants in some way (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015).

Justice Clarence Thomas remarked:

Image: https://api.oyez.org/sites/default/files/images/people/clarence_thomas/clarence_thomas.jpg

•       “Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for ‘religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.’ Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015).

•      “Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that ‘all men are created equal’ and ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,’ they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built. . . [Therefore,] the government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015).

Justice Samuel Alito discusses the constitutional issues with, and social implications of, the ruling on the case:

 Image: http://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1379762373i/210306.jpg

•      “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015).

•       “It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015).

•      “Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. Ante, at 26–27. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015).

Image:
http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/MAIN-TAPED-CHILDREN-PORTRAIT.jpg

 In response to the statements made by Justice Alito, I think most people can think of cases where these predictions came true. Several private business owners have been forced to close their doors due to a perceived “social injustice” when they denied a same-sex couple their services that would aid this couple in their marriage or their marriage reception. These denials of service were because the business owners did not feel comfortable going against their beliefs that marriage is ordained of God and that He ordained it to be between a man and a woman. Furthermore, according to reports, the owners did not humiliate or treat the same-sex couple rudely. They simply said that they could not help them, briefly informed the couple of their religious beliefs, and referred them to businesses that would be willing to help them. They offered the couple help, yet they were forced out of business and, in at least one case, were forced to pay restitution to the same-sex couple.

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/03/christian-bakers-face-government-wrath-for-refusing-to-make-cake-for-gay.html

Religious freedom has been attacked incessantly. In California, a law was passed in order to indoctrinate children on homosexuality as early as the second grade. Not only that, but it also strips the parent of their right to remove their children from such lessons for offensive material that teaches doctrines against their beliefs (Grubbs, 2016). This should give everyone pause to consider that our rights, according to the first Amendment, of being free to have religious belief systems is being systematically infringed upon, which is unconstitutional: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” ( The Constitution of the United States, Article 1). 

Image: https://acewallpaper.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/kiss-the-bride-and-groom.jpg

Acting in my right to freedom of speech, I believe that marriage is ordained of God. I believe that He ordained it to be between a man and a woman in order that they should form families and learn the ways of God and be free to teach those things to their children that they may not become indoctrinated with the philosophies of the world which are incorrect. As for the children, the need for a father and a mother in the life of a child is indispensable and, therefore, should not become dispensable either by flippant attitudes toward the nature of procreation itself or through same-sex unions that effectively cancels out the biological parent of the opposite sex to the adults raising them. I feel that we MUST consider the needs of the children rather than only considering the feelings of adults.

Now, I know that many will disagree with my stance, and it is their right to do so. I am not saying that people do not have the right to their own opinion. I am also not saying this to be cruel. We all should be alloed to have our own opinion and to be able to peaceably stand up for it, which is what I am trying to do. I also do not advocate the demeaning or demoralizing of anyone who is gay or feels that same-sex marriage is a good thing. I appreciate the talents and strength of people who identify as homosexual. I appreciate kindness from all around me even more.

Image: https://image.freepik.com/free-photo/friends-in-circle-with-heads-together-smiling_1139-613.jpg

Hooray for friendship!!

Also, one may feel that this author is biased because I have neither been in a homosexual relationship or raised by homosexual parents. I ask you to read and consider this letter written to Chief Justice Kennedy (one of the judges who voted for same-sex marriage) from a woman, Katy Faust, who was raised by a homosexual couple. I think you’ll find it interesting and rather touching:

Image: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/512799895594336257/7a1gZMMw.jpeg

 (Katy Faust)

Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent

Link: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/?utm_source=The+Witherspoon+Institute%20utm_campaign=782782f4d4-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN%20utm_medium=email%20utm_term=0_15ce6af37b-782782f4d4-84114781

In closing, we should all try to understand the implications of the ruling by the Supreme Court, which goes against their duty described in the Constitution. Please consider the words of the dissenting judges in the same-sex marriage ruling. Please also consider what it means to have freedom of religion in this great country and allow people to "worship how, where, or what they may" (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1989, Article 11). Then, for our children and for one another, we must learn try to live peaceably, no matter what our stance is on this issue.  Lastly, consider this quote by Supreme Court Justice Alito: “Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turn-about is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). 

Link: http://www.randomacts.org/images/quiz/1b.jpg

References:

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (1989). The Doctrine and covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Pearl of great price. Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Faust, K. (2 Feb. 2015). Dear Justice Kennedy: An open letter from the child of a loving gay parents. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/?utm_source=The+Witherspoon+Institute%20utm_campaign=782782f4d4-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN%20utm_medium=email%20utm_term=0_15ce6af37b-782782f4d4-84114781

 

Grubbs, A. (20 Jul. 2016). California soon to be first state to teach LGBT history in public schools. CNSnews.com. Retrieved from http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/alex-grubbs/california-soon-be-first-state-teach-lgbt-history-public-schools.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015). Supreme Court of the United States.