Redefining Marriage. What's the Big Deal?

                                          
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to forbid marriage to same-sex couples. In one fateful decision marriage was redefined. It is no longer defined "as the union of one man and one woman which forms the foundation of family and of society without which there would be neither civilization nor progress" (Maynard v. Hill, 1888). But what really happened? I remember hearing little bits and pieces and the final verdict. Regrettably, I did not get as involved as I probably should have. Whether you agree with same-sex marriage or not, it is good to know what happened and how it will affect Americans.

 It was interesting to me to learn that this decision was made by five out of nine judges who are not elected into their office and who do not represent a cross-section of Americans. (see note) They are also not supposed to create laws. Their duty is only to tell what the law is, not what it should be. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas said in their dissenting argument (2014), "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 expressly disclaims judicial 'caution' and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own 'new insight' into the 'nature of injustice' (ante at 11, 23). As a result, the court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"

 "I would not 'sweep away what has so long been settled' without showing greater respect for all that preceded us. ...This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history-and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of the lifelong relationship."(Ibid.)  I respectfully disagree with the statement that marriage didn't come about from religious doctrine. "WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children" (The Family: A Proclamation to the World", 1995 Paragraph 1.) The point is, our laws were designed so that we as a people could debate and vote on laws according to the dictates of our own conscience. OUR rights were infringed by the Supreme Court ending all debate. "It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds" (Schuette v. BAMN, 2014). 

So what now? How will this affect society and you as an individual? 

1. This decision is reorienting the institution of marriage away from the needs of children toward the desires of adults. (Ryan Anderson, see link below) It is important to note that a group of adults who were raised in same-sex parent homes pleaded with Justice Kenndy to not redefine marriage. Why? "Redefining marriage redefines parenthood. It moves us well beyond our 'live and let live' philosophy into the land where our society promotes a family structure where children will always suffer loss. It will be our policy, stamped and sealed by the most powerful of governmental institutions, that these children will have their right to be known and loved by their mother and/or father stripped from them in every instance. In same-sex-headed households, the desires of the adults trump the rights of the child." (Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent, link below) Mothers are not dispensible. Fathers are not dispensible. We feel a connection to our biological parents no matter what. We yearn to know about them and find out where we came from.   In my own life, even though I had two step-fathers that eventually adopted me, I had some scars of being given up for adoption by my own biological father. I love my adopted father dearly, but I still wanted to know about and have a connection to my biological father.

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity" The Family: A Proclamation to the World", 1995 Paragraph 7). This is a child's right. Sonia Manzano, otherwise known as Maria from Sesame Street, stated, "We live in a world where people make-believe that they care about children." Sadly, this is very true.

2. This ruling takes away the principles that have been guiding decisions to form policies that have been created to protect marriage and family. Governments know that marriage and families are the basic unit of society and have been developing policies and programs to support it and protect it. With the redefinition of marriage, those guiding principles are gone. New terms for relationships are forming such as Throuples, wed-lease (not wed-lock) and non-monogamous (Ryan Anderson). One of the arguments used to allow same-sex marriage is "the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, Opinion of the court) Under this principle, anything should be allowed because whatever one chooses is just an expression of their individual autonomy. Chief Justice Roberts pointed this out. "It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If '[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,' ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry?"

"The only way to ensure restraint in this delicate enterprise is 'continual insistence upon respect for the teachings of history, solid recognition of the basic values that underlie our society, and wise appreciation of the great roles [of] the doctrines of federalism and separation of powers.' Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 501 (1965) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment)." (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, Chief Justice Roberts dissenting arguments)

3. Our liberties are going to be taken away. Our freedom of religion, which is a legitimate right guaranteed by the Constitution rather than an assumed right, is already under attack. People are being coerced into recognizing same-sex marriage even if it goes against their own personal beliefs. This is violating the rights of individuals who won't agree to take pictures of same-sex couples, who won't make a cake for their wedding ceremony, or who won't perform the wedding ceremony in their place of worship. Now we are being told that we have no rights to choose and same-sex couples have the right to choose whoever they want to take their pictures, make their cake, and perform their ceremony. I did not see these rights stated in our Constitution. The dissenting Justices acknowledged that this decision is going to cause people who are unwilling to assent to be vilified for "doing nothing more than follow[ing] the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history" (Chief Justice Roberts ). As Cathy Ruse stated in her remarks during the World Congress of Families IX, government officials are forcing "us to bend the knee at the altar of a foreign god," and we cannot let that happen. 
                                           

• Obergefell v. Hodges 576 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
• Note: Justice Scalia's dissenting argument
• "Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation."

• Ryan Anderson testifies before the Indiana House Judiciary Committee  https://www.youtube.com/embed/3TNmKo5KcMY?rel=0
• Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/?utm_source=The+Witherspoon+Institute%20utm_campaign=782782f4d4-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN%20utm_medium=email%20utm_term=0_15ce6af37b-782782f4d4-84114781 
• Cathy Ruse remarks, World Congress of Families IX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVTHhQhFb8M
• Oaks, Dallin H. (2014) Loving Others and Living With Differences   https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/loving-others-and-living-with-differences?lang=eng