Justices’ Same-sex Marriage Clash Portends the Culture War’s Climactic Battle

on July 2, 2013
(Illustration credit: Greg Groesch / The Washington Times)
(Illustration credit: Greg Groesch / The Washington Times)

By Janice Shaw Crouse (@janicecrouse)

The following article appeared in the July 2 edition of The Washington Times and is re-posted with permission.

The real problem with the Supreme Court marriage decision is buried in the fine print. The dissent written by Justice Antonin Scalia is a resounding rebuttal of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s statement of the majority decision. As columnist Wes Pruden wrote, Justice Kennedy “put everyone who disagrees with him beyond the limits of human decency.” Justice Scalia sounded the alarm by exploring the ramifications of the decision and putting it in context with clarity, realism and a stinging rebuke to those who forced this issue.

It is important to note exactly what the court decided and did not decide. The Supreme Court did not create a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage,” nor did the Supreme Court overrule the laws of those states that have voted to preserve marriage as the lifetime union of one man and one woman.

Regarding the Proposition 8 vote, the Supreme Court, in an instance of legal maneuvering that trumps common sense, said that those sponsoring the California initiative did not have “standing” to defend the constitutional amendment passed by more than 7 million voters. This amounts to the court saying, if we don’t want to address the issue, we simply say you don’t have the right to raise the issue with us. Thus, the California officials who refused to enforce the law got away with rejecting the will of the majority in their state.

In the Defense of Marriage Act vote, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3, which defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman for federal purposes. The narrow victory grants federal benefits to same-sex couples who live in states where such “marriages” are legal. In effect, though, the decision overturns the 1996 action of a bipartisan majority in Congress, even though the decision allows states to determine their own definition of marriage. Even CNN pointed out: “This is a serious loss for federalism and democratic self-government.” Section 2 of DOMA, which remains, makes it clear that no state is required to recognize another state’s same-sex “marriages.”

The technicalities, though, are obscured by the media “victory” won by the homosexual activists. More and more Americans are viewing same-sex “marriage” as inevitable, and the in-your-face media campaigns to normalize homosexual relationships are successfully changing the popular culture.

The state of the culture war can be clearly seen in the “Kennedy v. Scalia” opinion in the Defense of Marriage Act case. Justice Scalia gave us a glimpse into the future by exposing in all its raw bias the motivating rationale of those who seek to legalize same-sex “marriage” across the nation. He boiled it all down for the public:

“In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to ‘disparage,’ ‘injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘demean,’ and ‘humiliate’ our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence — indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”

Let that sink in: Justice Kennedy contemptuously declared that all who support the traditional definition of marriage are haters; supporters of marriage as between one man and one woman for life are disparaging, injuring, degrading, demeaning and humiliating homosexuals — in spite of the fact that marriage between one man and one woman has been unquestioned “in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history.” As Justice Scalia points out, it is one thing to disagree; it is quite another to label those holding opposite points of view as “enemies of the human race.”

In other words, believing that the Bible is the Christian’s authoritative “rule for faith, doctrine and conduct” constitutes the degrading, demeaning and humiliating of others. In essence, the Judeo-Christian values that have guided citizen’s behavior and actions throughout American history are no longer respected as the standard of conduct for good citizenship in this nation. The fallacy and ultimate outcome of that line of thinking was plainly stated by Justice Scalia:

“It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here — when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’ hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will confine the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.”

The bottom line is that the Supreme Court rulings fly in the face of a growing mountain of social science research showing that the best household arrangement for children is a married mom and dad. It contradicts centuries of experience across time and cultures for the best family structure for strong nations. It represents a national experiment in social reconstruction at the expense of our children’s futures and the future of America. These decisions repudiate — with a vengeance — the sacred trust of the Founders who built this great nation “under God” and on a foundation of Judeo-Christian principles that have stood the test of time.

Worse, the rulings warn of a future where Christians will have a choice: Keep silent about their faith or face not just being cast as a social pariah, but harsh retribution in the form of fines and imprisonment. It is hard to envision such an outcome, but the pivotal changes and losses of religious freedom and freedom of speech over the past few years portend a bleak future Christians must take seriously.

jsc-redbg

Janice Shaw Crouse chairs the Board of Directors for the Institute on Religion and Democracy. Crouse is author of “Marriage Matters” (Transaction Publishers, 2012) and “Children at Risk” (Transaction Publishers, 2010).

  1. Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on July 2, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    In 2008 California voters approved Proposition 8, defining marriage as a man-woman institution (this would mark the SECOND time Californians approved such a measure). While one might think this would be uncontroversial, times have changed.

    Prop 8 was challenged, and, due to the opinion of one individual, Judge Vaughn Walker (himself gay), was overturned. California refused to defend Prop 8 despite the mandate of voters, so Judge Walker’s ruling was challenged by Prop 8 proponents, resulting in the recent Supreme Court judgment that the proponents had no legal standing to bring the case. This left Judge Walker’s decision in place, disenfranchising the majority of people who voted on the 2008 initiative—the most supportive demographic having been African-Americans.

    Prop 8 reads as follows: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” There is no mention of religion even though supposed religious bigotry was a focus of Judge Walker’s objections. The measure does not preclude same-sex couples from receiving the same or similar benefits as opposite-sex couples. It does not denigrate anyone and it certainly does not tell anyone who they can love. It does not presume that its supporters have been exemplary in their marriages (or lack thereof). It’s simply an affirmation of what marriage has been for 99-plus percent of human history.

    While all major religions support this view of marriage (not an insignificant fact), it is not strictly a religious understanding. Arguments involving biology, complementarity, natural law, history, child-rearing, etc. can all be used to support traditional marriage.

    Nevertheless, as of this moment, judicial activism has redefined marriage in California, and it may well do the same in other states.

    Regardless of one’s opinion the question is begged: Is this the best way to decide such an important matter?

  2. Comment by skotiad on July 2, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    All good points, cleareyed. I would add one thing: we’re constantly bombarded with the word “JUSTICE!” from the liberal side. How ironic, since there is NO justice at all in what just occurred with the Supreme Court, since it is hardly justice to invalidate the clear intent of the people of California. Likewise it was an injustice for that scapegrace Judge Walker to claim that Prop 8 was the result of “religious bigotry” since even the atheist regimes in the USSR, China, and Cuba accepted the institution of marriage as existing between one man and one woman. The worst injustice of all is Kennedy’s smear of everyone who supports marriage as “haters.” Amazing that one old man in Washington can see into the souls of millions of people and see hate, especially when it isn’t there.

    Don’t believe leftwingers when they beat the drum about “justice.” what they mean by “justice” is “favoring our side and slandering anyone who opposes us.” Real justice is the last thing on their minds, ditto for “compassion.” Read Kennedy’s opinion and see just what form a liberal’s “compassion” takes.

  3. Comment by johns79 on July 3, 2013 at 7:55 am

    Christians in America will have to relearn the lessons of their predessors. How to live as a disenfranchised minority in a pagan society.The time is coming when it will again cost someone to follow and obey God.

  4. Pingback by End Times Prophecy Headlines: July 3, 2013 | End Times Prophecy Report on July 3, 2013 at 8:20 am

    […] Justices’ Same-sex Marriage Clash Portends the Culture War’s Climactic Battle […]

  5. Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on July 3, 2013 at 8:24 am

    Part of the leftist strategy is to relegate support for traditional marriage to the religious realm (specifically the “religious right” realm). Then they can invoke the mythical “separation of church and state” narrative to make any further changes they desire, which, you can bet the house, will involve further redefinitions of marriage…modern leftists are never satisfied.

  6. Pingback by Steynian 478 | Free Canuckistan! on July 4, 2013 at 11:04 am

    […] for Religious Liberty; Standing for Religious Freedom on HHS Mandate; Justices’ Same-sex Marriage Clash Portends the Culture War’s Climactic Battle; National Days of Prayer for Reconciliation in South Sudan: Day 2; A Southern Baptist Response to […]

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.