In the 2015 Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage in America,
- Five justices imposed on the entire country a radical redefinition of marriage, claiming that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.
- They reversed an entire piece of the history of our nation and placed gay rights in the category of civil rights.
- Five unelected individuals weaponized a very small militant activist group to demand sweeping changes in the public life of the nation.
It stretches the imagination beyond credulity to think that those who adopted our constitution could have envisioned this kind of distortion of the intent of the document.
The social consequences of the court’s decision will sadly become increasingly disruptive and result in multiple conflicts between religious freedoms and the sexual preferences of a very small percentage of Americans (preferences that five justices placed in the federal legal status of a civil right).
Religious institutions will either have to bend their will to the Sate and renounce their beliefs or be made to suffer for them.
A movement of judicial tyranny
Americans are beginning to recognize and react to a growing trend of activist judges who are not hesitatnt to impose on the entire country what they think is best for the people. Although referendum votes showed that a majority of citizens supported traditional marriage and opposed gay marriage, activist judges unilaterally imposed gay marriages on entire states. It began with three states:
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2003.
- California’s Supreme Court followed and mandated gay marriage.
- Connecticut Supreme Court followed by striking down the state marriage law in a 4-3 decision.
Think about it
Same-sex marriage was legalized in three states of more than 46 million citizens, and only 12 of those citizens — four justices in each state — had a voice in the decision.
After the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage in America
Justice Scalia (in dissent) wrote,
- “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”
- “A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”
- “The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.”
Token acknowledgment of religious freedom
Justice Kennedy (majority opinion)
After ranting against those who oppose gay marriage using inappropriate derogatory and demeaning language, Kennedy condescendingly (and disingenuously) offered patronizing concession to religious and individual freedom.
- “Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.”
- “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”
- “The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate.”
Justice Roberts (in dissent) wrote,
- “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.”
- “Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens — through the democratic process — to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.”
- “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”
- “The majority’s understanding of due process lays out a tantalizing vision of the future for Members of this Court: If an unvarying social institution enduring over all of recorded history cannot inhibit judicial policymaking, what can? But this approach is dangerous for the rule of law.”
- “The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it.”
- “Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause.”
- “Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage— when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”
- “By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage—have acted to ‘lock . . . out,’ ‘disparage,’ ‘disrespect and subordinate,’ and inflict ‘dignitary wounds’ upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. These apparent assaults on the character of fair-minded people will have an effect, in society and in court.”
- “Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted.”
- “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.” (Justice Roberts)
Justice Alito (in dissent) wrote,
- “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. 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. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”