My hope for humanity moving forward
after the Supreme Court Ruling on same-sex marriage is this. Those who believe
marriage is between a man and a women will not be labeled as bigots and
dismissed out to the debate on what is best for society. However it is
important to stress those of us who do believe in traditional marriage must be
respectful and kind as we address this sensitive topic. We should to never be rude or make jokes of the
LGBTQ community or those who defend it.
Like Alexander Dushku touch on in this video we supporters of traditional marriage should separate
ourselves from those who miss treat people for the LGBTQ community. We need to
protect their rights and choices of expression. That being said we must also
stand up for our right to disagree with their live style. Maintaining a balance
between the two. I found it
disheartening that in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
only one paragraph was dedicated to protecting the rights of religions and
those who practice those religions from condemning same-sex marriage, (pg 27). It
felt more like, “Oh yeah, we better same something about the Frist Amendment to
make the religious fanatics happy.”
When I worked in a restaurant the
waiters would sometimes get stiffed by the people they served. Most had had the experience of a customer who
did not leave no tip. We would commented to each other how lousy it would feel receiving
nothing. Though, we universally agreed getting nothing was not as bad as
getting a few coins, or worse, the ultimate insult one coin. At least if they left nothing we could imagine
in their hurry to beat the traffic to the next event of the evening they had
forgotten to leave a few bill. However, one coin was a slap in the face to a
server. That single paragraph written by the five judges who changed history
for our nation, felt more like a coin left on the table.
A few insights that I found interesting were how all four judges
that dissented worried that the decision overstepped its bounds. For example,
Alito words gave a perfect word of warning with this statement.
“Today’s
decision shows that the decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of
its authority have failed. A lesson that some will take from today’s decision
is that preaching about the proper method of interpreting the Constitution or
the virtues of judicial self-restraint and humility cannot compete with the
temptation to achieve what is viewed as a noble end by any practicable means. I
do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution
a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity
is cause for concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and perhaps
irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional
interpretations.
Most
American-understandably-will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their
views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their
thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power
portends.” (Alito, pg. 8)
Honestly,
it scares me that such a decision was made more from personal opinions and less
on the actual interpretation of the law. This type of power the Supreme Court
has should not be used lightly. We as citizens need to be diligent in demanding
that the rights of the states have the say for what is best for us. As our
founding fathers of this great nation intended.
Dushku, Alexander (July 7, 2015). The religious freedom implications of the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage in Obergefell V. Hodges. Religious Freedom Annual Review (Conference), Brigham Young University.
No comments:
Post a Comment