For the past few days, I have literally had my eyes glued to my computer as I read and studied the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. Along with their ruling, I read the dissenting comments of Court Justice Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. I am grateful for this experience and the light and knowledge it has brought to me as a woman, wife, mother, daughter of God and citizen of the U.S.A. I want to share three principles of the dissenting arguments that really stood out to me and in my opinion deserve further pondering.
Justice Roberts, “Removing racial barriers to marriage, therefore, did not change what a marriage was any more than integrating schools changed what a school was.”
The reason I feel this statement warrants further understanding and to be repeated is that it opens up the question of, is not allowing same sex marriage about racism? Does it follow the same path and traditions as racism did? This statement by Justice Roberts suggests that it is a very different thing than what the Supreme Court Ruling compared the reason for their actions too.
Supreme Courts Opinion; “There is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices. Cf. Loving, supra, at 12 (“[T]he freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State”).”
The decision to allow any race the freedom to marry did not change the definition of marriage. However, the decision to allow same-sex marriage did change the definition of marriage. This is a very valid point that speaks exponentially about the Supremes Court’s decision.
Justice Alito;” The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not.”
This statement really shakes the defense of the Supreme Court, especially because same-sex marriage has also brought infringement on freedom of religion. The country is full of diversity, in order for there to equality and peace there has to be an equal say, a way to stand for our different beliefs. Otherwise, those freedoms of equality, beliefs, and choice are taken away. A vote for or against same-sex marriage is a voice of freedom and beliefs. That voice was seized from the people. They were taken away by a few, Justice Alito states, “By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.”
Justice Roberts: “When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the winning side to think again. “That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.” Post, at 2–3 (SCALIA, J., dissenting). But today the Court puts a stop to all that.”
Lastly, According to Justice Roberts, this ruling was not a win for anyone, including same-sex couples. He states, “Indeed, however, heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.”
With this decision, a small percentage of Americans gained rights but the price was not nominal. The penalty; all Americans have lost their voice.
Justice Alito; “But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends (foretells).”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment