Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): SCOTUS Decides on Same-Sex Marriage for all 50 States

First, let us call this event for what it is: SCOTUS ruled that same-sex marriage is to be imposed upon all 50 states.

A 5-to-4 majority of unelected judges with lifetime tenure standardized a law throughout the nation -- and in the process, over-ruled state laws that were enacted by referenda and elected representatives across the country. The effect was to close the debate for all time, making it so it is no longer subject to revision and review.

I think you can figure where I’m coming from on this by now. I do not share the views with those of you who are saying that this is “marriage equality” or that the central issue is that same-sex marriage violates Divine Law. Those are a matter of opinion and they are certainly arguable in different degrees -- depending upon your preconceptions, I suppose.

But those are not as important to me as HOW this issue has been settled. To me, this isn’t even about the definition of marriage per se.

As was the case with abortion, the Philosopher Kings have decided that some issues are so “important” that the citizenry cannot be trusted to decide them. Prior to Roe v. Wade (1973) -- and now with Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) -- the states crafted, debated, enacted and revised laws on these issues based upon the will of the respective electorates. As consensus shifted over the years in the states, so did the laws. Hard questions needed to be asked and solutions needed to be compared in the 50 Laboratories of Democracy as the whole of society struggles with complex issues that have no easy answers.

Regarding abortion, SCOTUS side-stepped the central issue of personhood for the unborn child and made it about the mother’s privacy instead. Hence, whether a baby in the womb has rights to be considered was quashed as a matter of discussion under the law.

This time, the Court has side-stepped the central issue of what defines marriage and the implications under which circumstances families are built, the conditions under which children are reared -- and hence how any changes might affect society as a whole. Instead, they ruled upon the “equal rights” that people have to demand that society grant legal sanction to their unions -- while at the same time essentially saying it’s none of anybody else’s business.

Consequently, uncertainty is reinforced as to whether the will of the people is to be respected under the law -- even when these laws are the explicit product of popular will. It has been made clear that when Our Betters decide that the people “get it wrong” on a particular issue upon which there is no consensus -- or the consensus-building one way or the other is still in progress -- we will have those decisions taken away from us once-and-for-all.

For some of you, the end may justify the means. So long as the “correct” outcome obtains, who cares how we got there? But there may come a day when a law that you worked for, contacted your representatives to develop -- and saw enacted by the vote of millions of people -- is over-turned by a handful of silver-haired elitists who know better than the body politic what should be law.

The Courts are not supposed to enact laws, and they are not supposed to over-turn them either. For those of you who may not have found this in your public school textbooks, the Courts are supposed to rule on cases with the object of making sure that the spirit of the law -- and the will of the people who enacted it via their elected representatives -- is respected and how the particular case is settled adheres to the original intent.

Over-turning in one fell swoop various state laws -- and finding things in the Constitution that no one with any honesty can say is even implied -- certainly doesn’t fall into that category. These Justices are taking the powers of tyrants; their rulings are final and insulated from the public.

If a new law needs to be enacted, it is not supposed to come from the bench; that is anti-democratic and a flagrant abuse of power. If you disagree with a law, make your case to the citizenry and have it modified or repealed.

If you consider the main purpose of the Supreme Court of the United States is not to protect the Constitution as a bulwark against arbitrary law, but instead is to act as a buffer against the people, you are a fascist. If you are cheering that law you favor was imposed against the will of a majority whom you disdain, you are an elitist also -- and an enemy of freedom.

Face it. American culture has devolved into an era of decadence and hedonism. Obama was not elected and reelected in a political and social vacuum. Unfortunately history has shown that such cultures neither prosper nor persist. It was heartbreaking to read Scalia’s and Thomas’ dissents. These two fine men have seen in their lifetime the Supreme Court severely harm and perhaps mortally wound this country. First they legalized abortion on demand and are responsible for the bloody carnage that has followed. Now they have ruled in to destroy marriage and codify the homosexual agenda. Make no mistake they have acquiesced to the vile molestation of young boys by degenerate men. The Supreme court is a disgrace. If what they rule is truly the “constitution”, then it is very problematic for decent people of conscience to take an oath to uphold and defend.

“Civil disobedience is needed.”

This is a serious question: What form would it take?

If you refuse to cater a same-sex wedding, you’re fined out of business. If a group collects money to support you, the hosting site takes it down. If your church refuses to perform the wedding, it is wiped out with lawsuits, property seizures, arrests — whatever the Leftist government likes to make an example of you.

That is something that some proponents may not have considered — or maybe they have. Now that same-sex “marriage” is the Law of the Land, the coercive power of government will be used to nullify the First Amendment with respect to freedom of religion and expression.

Maybe discussions like this one will be made illegal some day. What then?

Regarding the so-called constitutional “right” to gay marriage, this is how Obama’s activist justices have cheated the states, wrongly ignoring 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty.

To begin with, note that the Constitution’s Bill of Rights (BoR) originally did not apply to the states. So even if the Founding States had included an amendment to expressly protect gay marriage in the BoR, only the federal government, not the states, had to respect such a right.

Next, pro-gay activist justices perverted the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protections Clause as an excuse to not only steal legislative powers, but breaching the Founder’s division of state and federal government powers to steal state legislative powers, using stolen state powers to legislate the so-called right to gay marriage from the bench (as they had done with the so-called “right” to have an abortion) as per the following explanation.

When state sovereignty-respecting justices were asked to decide if 14A’s Equal Protections Clause gave women the right to vote, the Court clarified that 14A added no new protections to the Constitution. The 14th Amendment only strengthened those protections which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.

“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

In fact, the congressional record shows that Court’s interpretation of Section 1 of 14A reflects the clarification of that section by John Bingham, the main author of Section 1.

“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)

So since the states had never amended the Constitution to expressly prohibit themselves from prohibiting citizens from voting on the basis of sex before 14A was ratified, 14A’s Equal Protections Clause didn’t automatically give women the right to vote as pro-gay activist justices have now argued with constitutionally unprotected gay marriage.

In fact, although the states later amended the Constitution to give women the right to vote as evidenced by the 19th Amendment (19A), it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to likewise expressly protect gay marriage.

So regardless what activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of gay marriage, the states are still free to make 10th Amendment-protected state laws to prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay marriage imo, just as they could make 10th Amendment-protected laws that discriminated on the basis of sex, both before and after 14A was ratified, laws that prohibited women from voting until 19A was ratified for example.

The bottom line is that activist justices had no constitutionally enumerated "right” to gay marriage to throw at the states.

In fact, let's argue that most of the states think that gay marriage is a good idea. If such was the case then there is nothing stopping the states from amending the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage.

Instead, pro-gay activist jusices have wrongly established the so-called “right” to gay marriage outside the framework of the Constitution, just as they did with the so-called vote-winning federal “right” to have an abortion.

It’s no accident that the 10th Amendment is under attack on several fronts — and the motivations from the Left in doing so are illuminating.

We are hearing from the race-hustlers that “States Rights” is a racist buzzword used to justify discrimination against blacks on the local level.

What is critical about Federalism is that the citizenry has the option of enacting legislation that comports with the values in the various communities — and voting with their feet when one jurisdiction taxes and regulates too much.

We thus have the opportunity within the same nation to see how different approaches to the same issue compare in practice. That way, a synthesis of the methods that have the best results can be developed and enacted.

The Left doesn’t like this. Similar to the one-world government advocates, they want the choice taken away so the entire population will be subject to a monolithic tyrannical regime — from which there is no escape.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.