Supremes Destroy Marriage. Bequeath Generations of Culture War to America.

Supremes Destroy Marriage. Bequeath Generations of Culture War to America. June 26, 2015

Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons. Photo by Josh. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ncindc/
Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons. Photo by Josh. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ncindc/

They just couldn’t let democracy work.

The United States Supreme Court issued another of their sweeping legislate-from-the-bench rulings today. They have created a new Constitutional definition of marriage that over turns the truncates the on-going democratic process and destroys 2,000 years of legal understanding that the family is a protected institution.

This ham-handed ruling brackets Roe v Wade in its destructive force on The body politic. It sets up generations of culture wars.

I will write about this ruling in detail later.


Browse Our Archives



TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

62 responses to “Supremes Destroy Marriage. Bequeath Generations of Culture War to America.”

  1. Acceptance of marriage equality is rising quickly, and statistical evidence demonstrates that it rises even more quickly where it has been legalized.

    Face it: in ten or fifteen years opposition to gay marriage will be about as popular as opposition to interracial marriage is now.

  2. In 10 years, your gay friends down the block will get married, and you’ll go to the ceremony, and cry as they announce their vows, and laugh as the flower girl (the biological daughter of one spouse) drops the basket on her way down the aisle, and say prayers for departed relatives and friends who you know are smiling down from heaven. And then you’ll go to their reception, and chat with the priest, and meet up with old friends, and watch the daughter play with her friends, and have a great time.

  3. It’s going to be soooooo much fun watching the religious lose their minds over this. Every gay bar in the country should serve drinks made from the tears of bigots,

  4. Personally, I’m pleased for this decision. I know that many here aren’t and won’t be and I understand where you all are coming from. To me this means that all Americans can now enjoy the benefits of legal marriage as well as, honestly, some of the disadvantages. To me it is a right. I do not expect any faith to be forced to marry same gender couples any more than they have been forced to marry heterosexual couples if they choose not to. Same gender couples have been around for centuries but mistreated in various ways due to their relationship. Who can now define a “normal family”? How many children are now living in either single adult families, or with a “step-parent” or going back and forth to spend time with each parent in joint custody cases? Why should SS couples with children be considered any differently? They have their ups and downs just like heterosexual couples—some will be happily married and some won’t. That is life. Just my 2 cents.

  5. Just heard about it. Now, we know what my grandchildren’s generation will be mobilizing against. It will be just like our overturn of Roe. Life and God will win in the end.
    I hope those Catholic justices go to confession or it will be very hot for them.

  6. Morally, abortion is a much greater crime than simulating marriage, but I’m already hearing that to not perform these rituals will cost tax exempt status. Who will pick up the extra costs of schools, hospitals, social services? I promise it won’t be the gay rights advocates.

  7. “destroys 2,000 years of legal understanding that the family is a protected institution.”

    Let them legislate from the bench all they want…their law is not God’s law and we all know, for those of us who believe, that God’s law has the final say. It is not surprising they ruled 5-4. A close call but not enough to uphold the beauty of marriage between a man and a woman.

    Are not the majority who sit on that bench, Catholic?

  8. “Supremes Destroy Marriage” is quite an overreaction. Patheos blogger, Father Longenecker, who was (and is) a huge detractor of same-sex marriage, no longer sees this as devastating. He recently he wrote:

    “Here’s a solution which is easy and should satisfy everyone: get the churches out of the legal marrying business. It’s simple: everyone who wants to be married goes to the judge or justice of the peace for a civil ceremony. They get their marriage license then they may do as they wish. If they want a religious ceremony of some sort they may have one in whatever way they choose.

    This should already be the way we do things in a country where we, from the beginning have prized the separation of church and state.

    Why, in any case, have we ever started such a tradition? Only because Christianity was the default setting for Americans. It is not so any longer. We live in a religiously multi cultural society.”

    (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/06/gay-marriage-a-simple-solution.html)

    Fr. Longenecker’s solution makes sense. It allows for both secular marriage and religious marriage to coexist. It allows for the people that disagree on religious grounds to disagree, while letting the institution of secular marriage evolve. As the Supreme Court ruling said, “The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the aban-donment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.”

    Further, another Catholic blogger (I can’t remember which offhand) points out that the only churches that will have to perform same-sex ceremonies are ones that encore it. Ones like the Catholic church have centuries of rites and traditions that prevent them from marrying even opposite-sex couples.

    Many of us, straight or gay, see this as a human right, which is greater than a right granted by constitution or any state. And in our POV, this is a win for human rights.

  9. I’ve been ok with civil marriage of gays for awhile now. Gays are 2-3% of the population, and a small percentage care about marriage.

    What they care about is affirmation. They very much need to be told their condition is normal. More than once, a gay man has admitted to me that he knows it’s wrong. But the advocates will stop at nothing to have their way. I’m already reading – in this thread and elsewhere – verbal attacks on Christians. They will go after our tax exemptions, although I doubt they will pick up the slack on social services that we provide. Look for the hate that these people are exuding.

    No, of course we won’t be “forced” to perform marriages, but will be punished.

  10. Willful murder and mistreating women and children are two of the four sins that cry out to heaven, Ken. As is sodomy.

  11. I’m not a bigot. I can just tell the difference between right and wrong. But I will donate the tears.

  12. No, never going to happen. We have been against killing infants since the foundation of the Church and continue so. Because of that the number of abortions in the U.S. Is going down. The same will be true of this.

  13. If I may add one more comment: the Supreme Court has not destroyed marriage, because it doesn’t have that power. The union of. Man and woman transcends state and religion being rooted in the biology of male and female. Alone among all biological systems, only the reproductive system is divided. Without the union of those two halves, there is no real marriage. Nothing “marries”.

    The SCOTUS has certainly done damage to the country, but I would argue no more so than King v Burwell, where the court simply adjusted the plain text of the law to for what they thought it should say. That is real social damage.

  14. Do you know why there is no opposition to inter-racial marriage? It’s because people accept that it was inherently wrong despite being culturally entrenched.
    Do you know why opposition to abortion is as strong today as it was 42 years ago? Because people know it is inherently wrong to kill another.
    Guess where we’ll be on ssm 40 years from now. Much closer to Roe v Wade than Loving v Virginia I guarantee you. Rebecca was right. The SCOTUS just guaranteed an ongoing and heated culture war because it wouldn’t let democracy have it’s say.

  15. Re Ja, I think you meant that people realize that laws against inter-racial marriage were inherently wrong. If I’m incorrect about that, tell me, and I’ll delete this.

  16. No. Reproduction and marriage are 2 separate things. Reproduction requires a sperm and an egg. Marriage, on the other hand, is the consent of 2 people to go through life together. The Supreme Court addresses this point directly on pages 15-16: “An ability,desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State.”

  17. Rebecca, the Supreme Court addresses this point on page 24 where they indicate that they were compelled by law to decide this case citing Supreme Court precedent from the 1940s….

    “The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation’s courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. The idea of the Constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.”

  18. Maybe the best two sentence explanation I have ever seen, Anne. Sadly, being able to tell the difference between right and wrong is getting pretty rare nowadays.

  19. America won’t last generations at this point, and not mainly because of this Supreme Court decision. The worst part of this decision, as Justice Scalia says, and as you alluded to, Rebecca, is that democracy is dead.

    “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

  20. Regarding the culture war: a little while ago on the BBC World Service they had a guest, from one of those save the family-type organizations, who was speaking against the gay marriage ruling. The exchange went something like this.

    Guest: With this decision the Supreme Court has set up a culture war.
    Host: But, you would’t be saying that if their ruling agreed with your side.
    Guest: True. You are right, but that didn’t happen.

    It’s all perspective, isn’t it? This has already been a culture war, and everyone is saying that this battle is over and won.

  21. Murder, defrauding a workman of his wages, sodomy, and opposing the poor are the big four. So yes, sodomy and abortion are in the same moral ballpark.

    I guess what I mean is that murdering innocent unborn children is itself especially heinous, but also it has broken the fundamental basis of human community. On that purely sociological basis, the destruction of the human community is only pushed along by same-sex marriage.

  22. Justice Roberts addressed that point and made clear the difference in asserting enumerated rights (those outlined in the Constitution) and inventing “fundamental” rights nowhere else supported.

  23. Do you honestly believe that? Do you really think that your grandchildren will look at the families of their gay friends, with their children as they play in the park or attend a school play, and think “I really wish they were not allowed to do that, I must start a political campaign to break up that family.”?

  24. According to some, first they knew what they wanted, then justified it. Ends justify means for SCOTUS.

  25. Just wanted to share a story that I just saw on TV, and perhaps you did also. It featured a gay couple who had been together for 55 years, (5 years longer than I have been married) and finally now allowed to marry, which they did. Gay and lesbian couples are not new—just, in many cases, were forced to pretend that they were just “friends’ or roommates, sharing rent etc.

  26. I’m already hearing about the tax exempt status. Which not only punishes the Church. Remember that we are the largest non-governmental social services provider around. When I worked for Catholic Charities, a fair bit of our work was paid for by the feds on a fee-for-service basis. That will be gone. We’ve already seen contracts for very good foreign development work discontinued by the administration because we won’t include “reproductive health” services in the package. The gay thing will come.

    The same forces that tried to drove Baronell Stutzman from her home and cost Brendan Eich his job won’t leave churches alone. Violence is further down the road, but remember the feminists attacking the cathedral in Argentina? Memories Pizza only got one arson threat, but had to close for a while due to fake phone orders. They also got phony bad reviews on Yelp.

    I could do this for awhile.

    But let me save us some time: not all gay people are vicious. It’s the advocates, many of them personally straight, you have to watch out for.

  27. Same-sex and interracial marriages are different categories, because being gay and being black are different categories. A corrupt California judge said they are, and the Supreme Court agreed. But it’s a legal fiction. That’s all.

    Anyway, you might meditate on the degree to which you are celebrating a media even, versus the degree of actual support. Remember Chik-fila? Remember Memories Pizza? There is a well-spring of people in this country who support same-sex marriage but won’t tolerate bullies. So take yes for an answer and go celebrate. The gloating is unseemly and telling.

  28. Thanks. I hope what you are predicting doesn’t happen—I do agree that the Church does a lot of good works not done by others. I’m not familiar with the incidences you mentioned, but do hope nothing similar happens due to this decision.

  29. Are you trying to tell me that Jews and Atheists aren’t legally obligated to go to Church on Sunday?!!! Are you sure?!!! What about meat on Fridays? Can they eat meat on Fridays?

  30. You said reproductive system. I’m quoting you. You didnt say conjugal union. Either way, you are trying to conflate civil marriage and the biology of reproduction.

  31. AnneG, let’s not chat here, please. I’m choosing my words carefully and politely in the hopes that they will be accepted by Rebecca.

    Our history on this blog (as evidenced by clicking our names on Disqus) is that i try hard and do research engage you in reasoned debate and you just walk away in the middle of it, leaving my replies to you unanswered. It’s unfair to me and it’s unfair to you too, because it leads me to conclude that you will not admit when you are wrong.

  32. Yes and he’s wrong. The USSC has stated in over 15 opinions that the right to marry is a fundamental right that we have as Americans. He’s disagreeing not only with 5 of his current colleagues but many of his predecessors going back to the 1800s.

  33. I suspect we will adjust on the tax-exemption without too much of a cut back in services. In fact, Catholics tend to be generous givers, although we give to causes, not so much the parish directly.

    What will be lost is the public-private partnerships as contacts are withdrawn. We’ve seen Catholic child-placing agencies shut down as gays demand placements (that they could get other places) and then blame us because we would dance to their tune. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Little Sisters of the Poor are decertified as a medicare provider.

  34. What compelled them was the success of the propaganda campaign to declare being gay the same as being black. Obviously, if that’s true, then the 14th amendment applies.

    When the corrupt Judge Walker declared opposition to ssm understandable only as unreasoning bigotry (opening his way to marry his boyfriend, btw) and the SCOTUS let that ruling stand, it was over then.

  35. Don’t be rificulous. It will be the political oppression they will fight mobilize against.

    Assuming this country still exists.

  36. That will never happen. I haven’t gone to out of the Church weddings of lots of people I love because it’s the beginning of many mortal sins and I will be very sorry if people I love put themselves in risk of the pains of hell. I grieve for them instead.

  37. It’s moral, not political. And, yes, ssm does not produce offspring.
    Your predictions about Roe were wrong. So will this be, eventually, if you don’t destroy the country first.

  38. pesq87, I weary of repeating this. No one is required to answer another’s comments on this blog. No one is required to engage in discussion with another on this blog. No one has the right to demand that someone answer their comments or respond to them on this blog. It’s called civility.

  39. Rebecca, I understand that and respect it and obey it. I wasn’t demanding that AnneG chat with me, — quite the opposite — my reply to her (I note that her post was directed solely at me) explains my reasoning for declining to further engage with her.

    When I exercise the right you’ve graciously accorded me (to cease what was once a robust dialogue with an interlocutor here), I think a short explanation by me is the polite and civil thing to do.

  40. It’s not a discussion. It’s him playing word games. He’s knows full well what I meant and can’t refute it. This is why I don’t engage him. Life’s too short.

  41. Rebecca, no problem. I just looked back over 6 months of comments and found only 1 series. Apparently, pesq87 does not like my logic or expressions because we disagree. I’m used to that.

  42. Gay and lesbian couples are not new, of course, and they are not married now, despite the junk law of “Let’s-pretend”. No one that I have ever known, myself included, has ever wished to prevent gay relationships, while morally disagreeing with them. Live and let live. The breaking point was their equating their demonstrably different relationships with marriage. Now that they have won, courtesy of an activist court, they won’t stop winning until they punish everyone who holds to their own beliefs, going for our moral and religious jugular.