Obergefell vs. Hodges - Same-Sex Marriage
- Rennie Devison
- Feb 2, 2019
- 7 min read
There are so many things to consider before taking a stand and promoting marriage between a man and a woman or accepting the lawfulness of same-sex marriage being a natural extension. I could not leave out comments made by our course creators in the pre-reading of the assignement instructions said he,
"As so eloquently declared by Elder Nelson (14 Aug. 2014) in his commencement address to students at BYU, marriage was ordained and created by God, not by judges, legislators, think tanks, popular vote, bloggers, pundits, or lobbyists. Those who are true disciples of Jesus Christ are defenders of marriage. We must stand up for the truth regarding the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman. As stated, "the day is gone when you can be a quiet and comfortable Christian."
In light of this call from Elder Nelson to stand as a disciple of Christ and as a defender of marriage, what sound principles and arguments can you teach from the Supreme Court Justices relative to the ruling on gay marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges; 2015), especially from those who dissented from the majority vote? It is sad to note that at the time of the announcement of the legalization of same-sex marriage, the voices, laments, and warnings of the dissenting Justices were quickly overshadowed and discarded by the celebration and applause of those eager to redefine marriage. Although a few short snippets or soundbites from dissenting Justices may have been broadcasted at the time of the ruling, the shrill media and those in favor of the ruling were quick to silence the dissenting voices in the newfound right that supposedly was always embedded within the Constitution.
Marriage between members of the same sex may now be legal in America and in some other countries of the world, but that does not mean that the struggle over the meaning of marriage has ended. As taught by Elder Nelson in 2014, "The future of marriage and of countless human lives will be determined by your willingness to bear solemn witness of the Lord and live according to His gospel." A powerful place to begin as a defender of marriage is within the actual document created by the Supreme Court Justices themselves at the time of the gay marriage ruling. Not only was marriage between a man and a woman greatly undermined by the ruling, but so was democracy in America, which has been a tremendous influence for good to all countries of the world.
As a disciple of Christ and a defender of marriage, what sound principles and arguments can we learn (added)/teach from the Supreme Court Justices in regard to the decision favoring gay marriage, especially from those who dissented from the majority vote? Their arguments are persuasive and powerful and act as a beacon of light to those who truly want to understand the nature of marriage and democracy in America. Yet sadly, their voices have largely been unheard."
Let us consider the matter together - Andrew Dushku has said, “There has always been a symbiotic relationship between the law and culture, one can’t exist without the other. Culture will drive law and law will drive culture” (Dushku, 2015).
Your view of the Obergefell vs. Hodges case ultimately comes down to your own choice. Whatever your beliefs and values? “I am a Christian,” (Ruse, 2015). I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and I am a Christian. As stated, the in “The Family Proclamation – marriage is ordained of God for a man and a woman.” (Hinckley, 1995). It does not say, for a man and a man, or woman for a woman. I wholeheartedly agree with remarks from Cathy Ruse, [World Congress of Families IX, 2015], “No matter what words are used to describe same-sex marriage, it does not change what God has commanded us, that is, to live chaste lives.” (paraphrased).
I refer to the word “Liberty!” It must be important as it is mentioned 149 times in the document presented to the people outlining the Supreme Court’s opinion. That is, the five Justices that agreed with the ruling and the four Justices who dissented.
Here is a snippet from Justice Kennedy, “who delivered the opinion of the Court. The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”
Petitioners are those having confidence in the formation of same-sex marriage. “The petitioners were seeking to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.” The respondents are state officials responsible for enforcing the laws in question. “The petitioners claim the respondents violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have their marriages, lawfully performed in another State, given full recognition.” “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to recognize a same-sex marriage licensed and performed in a State which does grant that right?” (Roberts, C. J., dissenting). It is clearly stated by Roberts and Alito that the Fourteenth Amendment does not
support the petitioners.
Robters, C. J., dissenting continues, “Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but
merely judgment.”
Alito J., dissenting… “Until the federal courts intervened, the American people were engaged in a debate about whether their States should recognize same-sex marriage. The question in these cases, however, is not what States should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.”
The Constitution says nothing about a right to same-sex marriage, but the Court holds that the term “liberty” in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses this right. Our Nation was founded upon the principle that every person has the unalienable right to liberty, but liberty is a term of many meanings. For classical liberals, it may include economic rights now limited by government regulation. For social democrats, it may include the right to a variety of government benefits. For today’s majority, it has a distinctively postmodern meaning. To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights. Indeed: “In this country, no State permitted same-sex marriage until the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in 2003 that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the State Constitution.”
If you want to research this further here are three links that will a well round arguement from both sides. The first is a summary of the courts opinion (PDF). The second is a statement released by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints shortly after the Supreme Court ruling. The third is contributed by Jason Swensen, Church News staff writer. Fourth, the Family - A Proclamation to the world delivered by Elder Gordon B. Hinckley, Oct, 1995.
(press the <Ctrl> key) as you click the link to open them in a new tab).
Reading the summary of the Supreme Court’s opinion regarding, “Obergefell v. Hodges, gave me in-depth insights into the U.S. Constitution, the balance of power and how it was intended to be used for and by the people. Becoming proficiently acquainted with the law, and precedents previously acknowledged, allows one to address current issues. Knowing the historical origin of marriage and how it is defined allows us to see the difference when someone wants to change it. For example, the petitioners seeking to find “that liberty” by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.”
My view is this, I sided with the dissenters, what I have taken from this case is the petitioners want to redefine marriage to extend to same-sex marriage. By doing this they will receive benefits and entitlements of opposite-sex- marriages. I am sure that in the future the consequences of this decision will be found in the collateral damage of our children. Even now in Australia, government education is introducing philosophies teaching young children that gender attraction and same-sex marriage is normal. The petitioners say they want to “safeguard children and families and thus draws meaning from related rates of child-rearing, procreation, and education.” Teaching children these beliefs and values undermines Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation. Mother cannot replace father and father cannot replace mother. Why do you think in 1995, “THE FAMILY– A PROCLAMATION TO THE WORLD was announced?” It was a prophetic warning to the world two decades earlier that these things would take place.
I have spent the past week in discussions with family, friends, and four of my fellow classmates. We concluded, that we would live the gospel, support the government, and we would cast our vote in righteousness. We would accept and love our friends with same sex attraction and not reject them if they chose the alternative marriage lifestyle.
Комментарии