There was nothing too surprising about the decisions of the Supreme Court. In March 2013, when the Court began to hear cases regarding marriage, I suggested that they would either postpone or dismiss them. But the court, by a 5-4 majority, struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.
The five justices (in my opinion) acted inappropriately and I could not agree more with the dissent in stating that the court should have “no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation [DOMA]. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.”
DOMA was enacted by a vote of congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It passed by a large majority only to now have five unelected justices unilaterally strike down what the elected officials of the people approved. The Supreme Court should have dismissed this issue, thus allowing the people to address it through their elected officials.
At least the court did not radicalize its role by overturning the part of DOMA that allows individual states to refuse to endorse same-sex marriages performed in other states. This was the error of radical judicial action in the Roe v. Wade decision. The justices did not mandate gay marriage for the whole country. States may continue to refuse to recognize gay marriages endorsed by other states.
Along these lines, the importance of the next presidential election cannot be underestimated, primarily because of the Supreme Court appointments he or she will make. A liberal president will likely appoint justices who will try to force the entire nation to conform to the radical demands of gay activists.
On another level, it’s sad that we are even debating the institution of marriage. Marriage (as an institution) is in enough trouble without dissolving it into a debate about what kind of sex people want.
This is not about race or gender or civil rights discrimination. These are false comparisons based on false arguments that are easily disproven. There is no scientific evidence for an inborn condition making people gay.
This is a moral issue and those who oppose gay marriage should not be viewed as hateful racists who oppose the civil rights of an oppressed minority. Those who use this portrayal are engaging in manipulative deception and outright slander to get what they want. They have become the most intolerant people in our country today. We should all be free to form and discuss our moral convictions on this matter without being demonized for our choices.
Gay activists are demanding special laws for their lifestyle choices. But remember the simple fact that there is no ban anywhere in the US forbidding same-sex relationships. These relationships are legal in every state.
Why should an entire nation change the longstanding definition of marriage for 2 percent of those who demand it?
Furthermore, why doesn’t anyone consider the fact that same-sex relationships are notorious for serious domestic problems.
In his dissent to the Court’s decision on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia offered needed words of correction and warning, see: Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent