Thousands of years of human history cannot be overruled by three hours of debate before nine imperfect people. But today that is the best liberals can hope for in the race to upend nature’s law — and nature’s God. Outside the U.S. Supreme Court, where the future of civilization was on trial, people from both sides of the marriage debate soaked in the sun while inside clouds gathered over the question that’s shadowed America for the last 11 years: does the court have a right to force same-sex “marriage” on every state in the union?
Two years ago, these same justices argued no. It was wrong, Anthony Kennedy warned, for courts to “put a thumb on the scales and influence a state’s decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws.” Now, a vocal minority is asking these nine justices to put — not just a thumb, but the body of America’s highest court on the scales, toppling 240 years of self-governance. If they concede, burying the nation’s democratic heritage under an avalanche of judicial activism, states’ rights are forever at risk.
“If you prevail here, there will be no more debate,” Chief Justice John Roberts told the other side’s attorneys. “People feel very differently if they have a chance to vote on it” as opposed to having it forced on them. Justice Antonin Scalia chimed in as well, insisting that the key question here was who should decide the issue, pointing out that only 11 states had done so by a “vote of the people or the legislature.”
It wasn’t long before Justice Kennedy, who many see as the Court’s only swing vote, pointed out that man-woman marriage has been “with us for a millennia.” Why should the court impose a new definition and say “we know better?” he asked. Even liberal Justice Stephen Breyer shared his concern: “This has been the law for thousands of years. Suddenly, you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to change?” At least three justices brought up the slippery slope of inventing a right to marry, especially since it paves the way to legalized polygamy, incest, and — as we’ve already seen — faith-based discrimination.
“Would religious schools in the future be required to provide housing for same-sex couples?” Roberts asked. States could decide that however they see fit, said the plaintiff’s attorney. That’s impossible, Roberts said, if it’s a federal matter. Could tax exemptions be at stake? “I don’t deny that,” admitted the plaintiff’s attorney. “It is going to be an issue.” Or what about ministers who don’t want to marry homosexuals, Scalia demanded. If it’s suddenly a matter of constitutional law, “how can you allow exemptions?” The bottom line, both sides agreed, is that this would have a profound impact (and not a positive one) on religious liberty. At its core, the Chief Justice made clear to the Left’s attorneys, “You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he told the attorney. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”
Click here to read more.
SOURCE: Family Research Council