Threats to Marriage: Week 3

This week for class, I read the opinion of the Supreme Court in Obergefell V. Hodges, which is the court’s ruling on same sex marriage.  I found it very interesting, although a little difficult to understand.  I believe it was included in our readings this week because it highlights part of the problem this country is having in regards to the marriage argument.  One issue I see is that the court, while it felt it was following “due process,” was truly following the winds of change in society.  This ruling seemed to come about because of the pressure the justices might have been under or their own feelings about same sex marriage.  This ruling has put into jeopardy religious freedom and also seems to have caused the rule of law to be ignored by not allowing the State’s to form their own laws by the will of the people.

In Justice Robert’s dissent, he stated, “Allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as “fundamental” and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determination -raises obvious concerns about the judicial role. Our precedents have accordingly insisted that judges ‘exercise the utmost care’ in identifying implied fundamental rights, les the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of the Court.”  What this says to me is that he is acknowledging that the other members of the court seem to be putting their own politics in play instead of following the law.  The majority of the Court seemed to think legalizing gay marriage was for the public good.  The majority of the Court assumed the Fourteenth Amendment writers did not understand all the freedoms that would need to be included so left it to future generations to figure out its meaning.  Because the majority proclaimed this, Justice Scalia stated, “This is a naked judicial claim to legislate – indeed, super-legislative – power, a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”  He is pointing out how the majority of the Court are over stepping their bounds in reversing the Sixth Court of appeals decision to uphold the states laws on gay marriage. 

By including this in the reading this week, it helps me to see how traditional marriage is under attack from all avenues and that our religious freedom to believe in traditional marriage may also be in jeopardy.  The Supreme court has set a precedent now that they may legislate from the bench.  Since this is not their function in government, we, the people, need to be more aware of what the law and the constitution states. 

For me, marriage will always be between a man and a woman.  It is God’s law and His law cannot be changed by man. The difficulty in this discussion on same sex marriage is how we approach our views without hurting a person who happens to believe in same sex marriage.  Just as they have the right to their opinion, I surely have the right to mine.  As Justice Robert’s said, “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.” Alexander Dushku rightly pointed out that we need to still have civil discourse about this topic and those of us who believe in marriage between a man and woman should not be afraid of judgement or ridicule.  He mentioned how the Prolife and abortion rights activists can still discuss their viewpoints without being called bigoted or other worse names.  Neither side should give up their beliefs or their right to talk about it.

Same-sex marriage is a controversial subject, but I can still have compassion for my fellow man when discussing it.  As Elder Nelson stated, “Proclaim your love for all human beings ‘with malice toward none, with charity for all.’ They, as children of God are our brothers and sisters.  We value their rights and feelings.” 

References

Dushku, A. (Writer). (2015, July 7). Religious Freedom Annual Review (Conference) [Video file]. Retrieved January 13, 2017, from http://www.iclrs.org/content/events/111/2130.mp4

The religious freedom implications of the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage in Obergefell V. Hodges.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (June 26, 2015).

Nelson, R. (2014, Aug. 14) Disciples of Jesus Christ – Defenders of  Marriage. Brigham Young University Commencement. Retrieved January 16, 2017, from https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell-m-nelson_disciples-jesus-christ-defenders-marriage/