Defenders of Democracy and Marriage: The voices that have gone “unheard”
I recently had the
privilege of reading the Supreme Court Summary (click here for full summary) of the ruling that legalized
same-sex marriage in the United States on June 26, 2015. I
didn’t realize how much I could learn from reading this document. Let me be very clear on that point, I didn’t
learn more about the political, emotional or social view points of the Gay
community. I didn’t experience greater
compassion for their plight for all the previous years they were unable to
legalize their companionships in all States in the United States of America. I didn’t find new insight or understanding as
to why the definition of marriage really should be changed to include people of
the same gender. What I did learn was that first and foremost, the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to redefine marriage. I learned that because of the law that was changed by the Supreme Court in June of 2015 which legalized
same-sex marriage the constitutional rights of Americans were stolen from us. The rights to debate an issue and vote on an
issue and have a voice in the matter (the very definition of democracy) were taken from us by a handful of attorneys (5 to be exact) and a handful of judges. I learned that
because of this decision there will be severe consequences to our society at
large, many of which we do not yet realize.
I also learned that the vote in the courtroom was NOT unanimous. I learned that thankfully, there were a few voices in that court room that day who clearly, boldly and
profoundly stated their dissension, their caution and their warning voice to
the decision the Supreme Court Majority was about to make. Unfortunately for us, these few voices have
gone largely UNHEARD. Near the end of the Majority’s opinion it
states that the decision to legalize same-sex marriage poses “no risk of harm
to themselves or third parties.” This statement is NOT true and I would like
to expose exactly the risk of harm this decision poses to me personally, to
you, to our society, to our freedom, and to families and children. I want
to focus my remarks on three extremely important points out of many the
dissenting judges made that day. It is
my sincere hope that we can add our voices to theirs and be HEARD!
1) Threatens my Constitutional right to debate
an issue and to vote on an issue.
This poses a threat to my personal freedom. This poses a threat to the trust I can place
in my government and in our Judicial system.
This poses a threat to all other issues that might come before the Court
at some future point. Really consider
this point for a moment: If the Supreme
Court has the power to decide against the American people on an issue so basic
to human experience and so universally recognized as marriage being between a
man and a woman which has been the definition and understanding through all
ages of recorded history, then what can stop them from overriding our voice in
ANY other matter? The real issue in this case is who should decide what
constitutes a marriage and that decision should be left up to the States. For over a decade this country has been
debating and voting on this issue in almost every state. And in almost every state the people have
clearly made their voices heard. They
have declared that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one
woman. Now, “Five lawyers have closed
the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage – Stealing this issue from
the people, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to
accept.” The right (legalizing same-sex marriage) the majority announced “has no
basis in the constitution or the Supreme Court’s precedent. Courts
are not to be concerned with wisdom or policy of legislation but the majority
of the court neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role as they
proceeded with a vote to legalize same-sex marriage.” Dissenting Judge Roberts explains, “It seizes for itself a question the
Constitution leaves up to the people at a time when the people are engaged in a
vibrant debate on that question and it answers that question based not on
neutral principles of constitutional law, but its own “understanding of what
freedom is and must become.” Judge
Roberts further explains that “the Court is not legislature. Judges have power to say what the law is not
what is should be.” The majority’s
decision to legalize same-sex marriage was an act of will not legal
judgement. Furthermore, there has not
been sufficient discourse, nor has there even been made the case for
constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from
the place it has been since the founding; in the hands of State voters.”
“When fixed rules which govern the
interpretation of laws are abandoned and the theoretical opinions of
individuals are allowed to control the Constitution’s meaning we have no longer
a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time
being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own
views of what it ought to mean.”
**Something else worth noting: Those of us who are firm in our belief that
marriage is and always will be between a
man and a woman are not the only ones who have been harmed in this
process. Judge Roberts emphatically
points out that, “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.” They too have lost
their freedom to true democracy. The
people have been forced to accept this law not because it has been proven just,
or right or good for humanity but because it has been forced upon us.
2) Threatens our Religious Freedom: The Courts decision to legalize same-sex
marriage “raises serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and
decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom
to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually
spelled out in the Constitution. Respect
for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State
that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for
religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot,
of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests
that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of
marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however,
the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority
uses.” This right to exercise our
religious beliefs in now seriously threatened.
Hard questions, no doubt will “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.” These are just a few examples of the
countless threats to our religious freedom. This is already happening all over the U.S. Just look at the News headlines! It is up to us to protect and defend this particular and most important
right both as defenders of marriage and disciples of Jesus Christ.
3) Threatens the well-being of children which
in turns threatens society as a whole: With
one decision limited to a few paragraphs of text, the Supreme 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.” Judge Roberts so fittingly, then asks, “Just who do we
think we are?” Then further cautions, “I
would not sweep away what has long been settled without showing greater respect
for all that preceded us. For all those
millennia marriage referred to only one relationship – the union of a man and a
woman. Marriage between a man and a
woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very
definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of
civilization.” Let me focus for a moment
on the role and function of marriage.
What is the role and function of marriage? “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 a life-long relationship.” We know through social science research
and through decades of observed patterns and statistics that “a child’s
prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together. Therefore, for the good of children and
society sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur between a
man and woman committed to a lasting bond.
That bond is marriage.” Although
gays and lesbians feel they have been discriminated against and that there is
great injustice in the fact that they have been “left out” of the benefits of
marriage, these benefits of marriage have been put in place for decades as an
effort to encourage the union of a men and women in order to protect children and society. “By bestowing a respected status and material
benefits on married couples – society encourages men and women to conduct
sexual relations within marriage rather than without. Marriage is a socially arranged solution for
the problem of getting people to stay together and care for children.” Now that marriage has been redefined to
include same-sex couples we lose this most important component of the benefits
and respect of marriage. It is no longer
about what is good for children and society.
It is the very law of nature that procreation can only occur between a
man and a woman. Children that stem from
that procreative union can only have the right and the full benefits of having
a mother and father if they are married and stay married. Marriage of two people of the same-sex serves
no other purpose but to publicly sanction their “love.” There is no benefit to children, no benefit
for future families and no benefit to society.
The encouragement of marriage between persons of the same-sex does not
provide a future posterity or even survival of the human race nor does it
provide an environment conducive to meeting the needs of children.
I feel like it is vitally important for us to understand
what implications this means for us as citizens of the United States and as
disciples of Jesus Christ. It well worth
the time it takes and I urge you to read over this document and decide for
yourself what this means for you and your families. Those of us who believe in traditional
marriage and the right we have to make our voices heard must take a stand. Not because we hate anyone. Not because we are bigots or racist or
discriminating. Because we believe in
the true doctrine of marriage. We know
that marriage is central to the great Plan of Happiness laid out by our Father
in Heaven. We know that marriage
between a man and a woman provides the best and ideal setting for
children. We know that children have
needs that only a father can meet. We
know that children have needs that only a mother can meet. Because we believe in the freedoms granted us
by the Constitution of the United States of America. That is why our voices must be heard.
Please read and watch the following links:
No comments:
Post a Comment