Gay Marriage and the Supreme Court: civil law trumps religion

When you want something so badly and you want to impose you desires on others, your actions can sometimes backfire. The terrible shootings in Charleston was the desire of a young man to further the idea of white supremacy, but it resulted in a national dialogue of creating better race relations, of lifting society so everyone has a better chance at life, and a dramatic call to rid the nation of the symbol of slavery, the Confederate flag.

The same, according to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, can be applied to same-sex marriage and the desire by some to make it unlawful. Those interpreters of the Bible who refuse to believe there is any other way except for opposite-sex, tried to prevent gay marriage through legislation. Even President Bill Clinton got in on the debate when he signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, a statute that barred federal recognition of gay marriages. Here is part of what Justice Kennedy wrote on behalf of the majority in the 5-4 decision Friday declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage:

The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the state itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right. (Justice Kennedy)

Those on the Court in opposition believe this issue should not have used the Constitution, nor, do they believe, this issue is one of constitutional interpretation. But it arrived on the doorstep of the Supreme Court because those who believe same-sex marriage is wrong went so far as to create civil laws to prevent it, pushing the issue into the courts for Constitutional reasoning, using a document which is suppose to make sure laws are applied to everyone equally. To those who are strict, Bible-toting screamers of all denominations, those who believe according to their religious beliefs that same-sex marriage is wrong and should be outlawed by civil law, well, they would have been better off to leave the justice to Jesus instead of taking it into their own hands. Same-sex marriage may be against their beliefs, but it does nothing to disgrace or reduce opposite-sex unions. Maybe, upon reflection, they felt Jesus would have allowed gay marriage so they wanted to have a law to prevent it. Now, through the Supreme Court, a civil not religious body, same-sex marriage is lawful all across the United States, objectors be damned.

--------------------

Dictionary.com word of the day

stinkaroo (noun) [sting-kuh-roo; sting-kuh-roo] something markedly inferior in quality