SCOTUS to churches: Hey, no worries, you can still “advocate” for traditional marriage

posted at 12:01 pm on June 26, 2015 by Ed Morrissey

On this slender thread does the promise of religious liberty hang. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion in Obergefell that declares same-sex marriage a constitutional right, barely mentions the means by which most Americans conduct their weddings — houses of worship. Only on page 27 does Kennedy get around to addressing the connection between church and state, and the assurances in this paragraph are less than compelling, to say the least:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Uh …. sure, you can still advocate for traditional marriage. You betcha. Where have we heard these protestations of modesty before?

Note here that Kennedy only mentions that houses of worship and those who attend them can still “advocate” against condoning same-sex marriage (SSM). This ignores the long-standing partnership between churches/synagogues/mosques and the government in officiating legally recognized marriage ceremonies. This decision now makes marriage for those same-sex couples a constitutional right, and that will eventually impact those partners for government who officiate such ceremonies.

It won’t be long before lawsuits appear to force churches into performing same-sex weddings, which then becomes a RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) test against state interests. That’s not going to be a slam dunk for the churches, either — not by a long shot. The state interest in enforcing constitutional rights is presumed to be strong, plus Kennedy’s opinion lists a number of ancillary state interests that makes SSM an Equal Protection Clause issue:

The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. … Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

And pay particular attention to this passage:

Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied.

Will a court, reading this holding, decide that the harm of this “exclusion” and the denial of a constitutional right by an agent of the state in performing weddings override the First Amendment right of free exercise of religion? Some may not, but don’t bet on that as a consistent outcome. Furthermore, the legal challenges that will occur will punish these churches, especially smaller congregationalist entities without significant resources. The process will be the punishment — although I’d bet that the first target will be the Catholic Church, which at least has resources to fight it.

I’d also note that Kennedy, who brought up the topic, could have written explicitly that houses of worship and individuals have a First Amendment right not to participate in these ceremonies. That issue has been raised on a number of occasions in the courts. The absence of any such language sends a very disturbing message on religious freedom, in this and many other contexts.

Chief Justice John Roberts sounded the warning in his dissent:

Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1. …

The majority’s decision imposing same sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

Justice Clarence Thomas also warns that the majority has provided a body blow to religious liberty:

Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect. …

In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.

The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.7

Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.

Get ready for a massive legal assault on houses of worship that refuse to accommodate same-sex weddings. Even legislation on the federal and state level may not be able to undo the broad opening that Kennedy et al has forced on the religious institutions and people in the US. It’s clear that the Supreme Court has become unmoored from the Constitution, and in doing so has unmoored all of us as well.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

although I’d bet that the first target will be the Catholic Church, which at least has resources to fight it.

No. There will be forum shopping against poor lone unaffiliated churches who won’t have the resources to put up a fight. Establish the principle first, then go after the Catholic Church.

Hillary has already called for changing church practices.

rbj on June 26, 2015 at 12:13 PM

At that, probably particularly unpopular or fringe churches. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see them go after some of the more minor cults first, in hopes that Christian churches will not be interested in defending them.

It wouldn’t help, though. Even churches that consider JWs to be a non-Christian cult, for example, have backed them up when their right to proselytize was denied by local governments, because the same laws would affect everyone.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 26, 2015 at 4:28 PM

Westboro – they will go after the low hanging fruit to establish precedence. While that church, its doctrine and practices are anathema to other orthodox churches, they will be held to be the equivalent.

studentofhistory on June 26, 2015 at 4:35 PM

2005: Our marriage won’t affect your rights.

2014: Bake a cake or be destroyed.

Did you have a right to refuse service to gay couples by virute of them being gay couples?

Some places yes, others no. People have only gotten in trouble in the places where they never had the right in the first place. The 2005 statement above is perfectly true.

Tlaloc on June 26, 2015 at 4:38 PM

It won’t be long before lawsuits appear to force churches into performing same-sex weddings,

Yeah…except churches were never forced to perform opposite sex marriages…so your argument is BS.

Tlaloc on June 26, 2015 at 4:40 PM

You have to appreciate the destructive irony of Roberts usurping the powers of Congress to legislate yesterday, and then sounding the alarm against usurpation of the right of free practice today.

It takes a lot of temerity and a tremendous lack of self-awareness to do that.

To think that SCOTUS would even care should an attack on religious liberty be brought back to this court is laughable. This is perhaps the most destructive, loathsome and detestable court that has ever lorded over the people they are meant to serve. We not only have an unelected branch legislating, they are now alternating the Constitution to their personal whims. This is exactly what the Framers feared and now Roberts has brought it to life.

Marcus Traianus on June 26, 2015 at 12:56 PM

I strongly suspect Roberts ruled like he did on Obamacare in hopes of being able to sway people his way on SSM. A little bit of, “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.”

If so, it was a complete failure on both counts.

Which sounds about right for attempts at appeasement.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 26, 2015 at 4:49 PM

If we don’t get a conservative in the White House in 2017, and a Scalia/Thomas replacement on SCOTUS for one of the liberals, this country is sunk.

MikeRuss on June 26, 2015 at 12:12 PM

crying wolf again i see. You all said the country would sink if Obama was reelected. Country would sink if ACA passed. Everyone still seems to be here last time i checked.

farleftprogressive on June 26, 2015 at 1:07 PM

I’d say those people are being vindicated every day.

It’s a great country. Its fall will take some time.

And then happen suddenly.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 26, 2015 at 4:51 PM

Last week was the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Baptists are preparing for the consequences of SCOTUS ruling against marriage.

Marriage and religious liberty were two of the themes discussed this week. Barronelle Stutzman is a Southern Baptist, and after she was introduced, all the delegates (called messengers) knelt on the floor of the convention hall and prayed for her.

Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington state florist held liable by her state’s government for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding, received a standing ovation when she was introduced during the ERLC report. Naghmeh Abedini, wife of a U.S. pastor imprisoned in Iran for his Christian faith, briefly addressed the SBC Pastors’ Conference June 15 and spoke at the Pastors’ Wives Conference. Floyd asked God specifically for Saeed Abedini’s release during the convention’s evening of prayer.

Another thing that occurred:

The current and 16 former Southern Baptist Convention presidents released a statement on biblical marriage and the national implications of same-sex marriage in a June 17 news conference prior to the concluding sessions of the SBC annual meeting in Columbus, Ohio.

This is the statement they issued:

As Southern Baptist Christians, we are committed to Biblical faith and ethics. As a result, this body of Believers stands on the authority of Scripture and God’s Truth as central to our lives.

What the Bible says about marriage is clear, definitive and unchanging. We affirm biblical, traditional, natural marriage as the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. The Scriptures’ teaching on marriage is not negotiable. We stake our lives upon the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

Consequently, we will not accept, nor adhere to, any legal redefinition of marriage issued by any political or judicial body including the United States Supreme Court. We will not recognize same-sex “marriages”, our churches will not host same-sex ceremonies, and we will not perform such ceremonies.

While we affirm our love for all people, including those struggling with same-sex attraction, we cannot and will not affirm the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior or any behavior that deviates from God’s design for marriage. We also believe religious freedom is at stake within this critical issue – that our first duty is to love and obey God, not man.

Therefore, we strongly encourage all Southern Baptist pastors, leaders, educators, and churches to openly reject any mandated legal definition of marriage and to use their influence to affirm God’s design for life and relationships. As the nation’s largest non-Catholic denomination with over 16 million members, we stake our very lives and future on the Truth of God’s Word.

We also join together to support those who stand for natural marriage in the corporate world, the marketplace, education, entertainment, media and elsewhere with our prayers and influence, and resources.

INC on June 26, 2015 at 4:52 PM

This was the resolution adopted by the churches’ delegates (called messengers) last week at the SBC:

RESOLUTION 5:

ON THE CALL TO PUBLIC WITNESS ON MARRIAGE

WHEREAS, God in His divine wisdom created marriage as the covenanted, conjugal union of one man and one woman (Genesis 2:18– 24; Matthew 19:4–6; Hebrews 13:4); and

WHEREAS, The Baptist Faith & Message (2000) recognizes the biblical definition of marriage as “the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime,” stating further, “It is God’s unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race”; and

WHEREAS, God ordains government to promote and honor the public good and recognize what is praiseworthy (Romans 13:3–4); and

WHEREAS, The public good requires defining and defending marriage as the covenanted, conjugal union of one man and one woman; and

WHEREAS, Marriage is by nature a public institution that unites man and woman in the common task of bringing forth children; and

WHEREAS, The Supreme Court of the United States will rule in 2015 on whether states shall be required to grant legal recognition as “marriages” to same-sex partnerships; and

WHEREAS, The redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples will continue to weaken the institution of the natural family unit and erode the religious liberty and rights of conscience of all who remain faithful to the idea of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife; and

WHEREAS, The Bible calls us to love our neighbors, including those who disagree with us about the definition of marriage and the public good; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Columbus, Ohio, June 16–17, 2015, prayerfully call on the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the right of the citizens to define marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman; and be it further

RESOLVED, That Southern Baptists recognize that no governing institution has the authority to negate or usurp God’s definition of marriage; and be it further

RESOLVED, No matter how the Supreme Court rules, the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirms its unwavering commitment to its doctrinal and public beliefs concerning marriage; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the religious liberty of individual citizens or institutions should not be infringed as a result of believing or living according to the biblical definition of marriage; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention calls on Southern Baptists and all Christians to stand firm on the Bible’s witness on the purposes of marriage, among which are to unite man and woman as one flesh and to secure the basis for the flourishing of human civilization; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That Southern Baptists love our neighbors and extend respect in Christ’s name to all people, including those who may disagree with us about the definition of marriage and the public good.

INC on June 26, 2015 at 4:58 PM

I dislike the term “traditional marriage.” I prefer “real,” “actual” or “non-fecal” marriage.

CrustyB on June 26, 2015 at 5:34 PM

Here’s another group:

Christian Pastors: ‘Prepare for Massive Civil Disobedience’ if Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

At a press conference in Memphis, Tennessee, held in the Church of God in Christ’s historic Mason Temple, Rev. Bill Owens, president and founder of the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP), said, “If they rule for same-sex marriage, then we’re going to do the same thing we did for the civil rights movement. We will not obey an unjust law.”

“The politicians and the courts have tried to take God out of this country,” he continued. “This country was founded on Godly principles. We will not stand back and be silenced.”

Owens urged Christians of all churches to prepare for civil disobedience if the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage and requires them to obey its decision.

“We stand today to put America on notice that we will not obey an unjust law,” he asserted.

In an interview with Breitbart News, Owens said that, should the Supreme Court decide in favor of same-sex marriage, he envisions another civil rights movement of Christians of various churches and massive civil disobedience.

“I see the way forward, it’s the civil rights movement all over again,” he said. “Most gospel preachers will not obey such a decision.”

Owens has said many times that militant LGBT activists have hijacked the real civil rights movement – led by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. – and claimed it as their own.

“We wanted equal rights in the original civil rights movement I was part of. They want special rights,” he continued. “Before this is over, it will take civil disobedience. We will not set aside our religious beliefs over this. We will urge Christians to massively disobey any law that invades our religious freedom.

Owens said that leadership in the United States has taken the nation into a “downward spiral.”

“President Obama overrode the will of the people,” he said. “The people voted for marriage between a man and a woman. Our votes were stolen from us.”

INC on June 26, 2015 at 6:01 PM

But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied.

This is bizarre. It presupposes that nothing should be demeaned or stigmatized. And going by all of it — it would be unconstitutional to write a law that prohibits anything.

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.

— possibly correct in some circumstances

They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life.

— possibly correct in some circumstances

The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Is a page missing? where the homosexuality of the parents is vindicated of all its consequences, and the blame is shifted to laws that allow people to marry?

That bit’s like some drunk syllogism: Some grapes are purple; this grape is purple; therefore, burn down the Duke farm and destroy that damned car

Axe on June 26, 2015 at 6:05 PM

Congress shall pass no law barring the free exercise of religion.

But the SLOTUS may! (Supreme Legislature of the United States)

talkingpoints on June 26, 2015 at 6:16 PM

be it further RESOLVED, That the religious liberty of individual citizens or institutions should not be infringed as a result of believing or living according to the biblical definition of marriage

The battle’s there.

INC on June 26, 2015 at 4:58 PM

Axe on June 26, 2015 at 6:20 PM

Justice Kennedy, it is the right of religions to do so. You did not give them that right, and you cannot take it away from them, regardless of your personal opinion on gay marriage.

grumpyank on June 26, 2015 at 6:52 PM

Bitter, angry troll is still bitter and angry.

Spoiled brats, the whole lot of them.

CurtZHP on June 26, 2015 at 6:57 PM

Axe on June 26, 2015 at 6:20 PM

I saw this list earlier today:

Marriage Redefinition Fallout | 90 Second Reaction
by CitizenLink Team

Here’s the list that Stuart shares in the video. Most all of these are based upon challenges and threats that have already taken place.

The tax-exempt status of non-profit ministries and organizations will be under attack nationwide.

Parents will have no say in what their children are taught about relationships and marriage in public schools. No notice in advance. No chance to opt out.

Teachers who express support for marriage may be fired.

Christian college accreditation will be attacked.

Government-backed student-loans at those colleges will go away.

Faith-based adoption agencies will be forced out of business.

Christian business owners, wedding photographers, cake bakers, florists, etc, will be sued for discrimination if they turn down business for a same-sex ceremony.

Churches open up their buildings to outside groups will be sued if they turn down events such as a reception for a same-sex wedding.

Faith-based charities and relief organizations that get money from the government will see those grants go away.

The freedom of Christian organizations to hire people who are in harmony with their beliefs will be attacked.

Members of the military who disagree will be challenged.

People who work for city and county governments who express support for marriage may lose their jobs.

There will be more, I’m sure.

INC on June 26, 2015 at 7:00 PM

Ryan Anderson has had a new book in the works for several months. It’s coming out in July.

Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom

INC on June 26, 2015 at 7:01 PM

SCOTUS to churches: Hey, no worries, you can still “advocate” for traditional marriage

Oh, so your august body of jurisprudence is going to uphold “hate speech”?

LOL This is too rich.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 26, 2015 at 7:31 PM

This is the statement they issued:

As Southern Baptist Christians, we are committed to Biblical faith and ethics. As a result, this body of Believers stands on the authority of Scripture and God’s Truth as central to our lives.

What the Bible says about marriage is clear, definitive and unchanging. We affirm biblical, traditional, natural marriage as the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. The Scriptures’ teaching on marriage is not negotiable. We stake our lives upon the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

Consequently, we will not accept, nor adhere to, any legal redefinition of marriage issued by any political or judicial body including the United States Supreme Court. We will not recognize same-sex “marriages”, our churches will not host same-sex ceremonies, and we will not perform such ceremonies.

While we affirm our love for all people, including those struggling with same-sex attraction, we cannot and will not affirm the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior or any behavior that deviates from God’s design for marriage. We also believe religious freedom is at stake within this critical issue – that our first duty is to love and obey God, not man.

Therefore, we strongly encourage all Southern Baptist pastors, leaders, educators, and churches to openly reject any mandated legal definition of marriage and to use their influence to affirm God’s design for life and relationships. As the nation’s largest non-Catholic denomination with over 16 million members, we stake our very lives and future on the Truth of God’s Word.

We also join together to support those who stand for natural marriage in the corporate world, the marketplace, education, entertainment, media and elsewhere with our prayers and influence, and resources.

INC on June 26, 2015 at 4:52 PM

If the SBC marries people who have been divorced while a first spouse is still living, they already perform marriages that violate God’s law of marriage, despite their deep “convictions” that they love God’s marriage laws. Remarriage after divorce, while a first spouse is living, goes against a marriage reflecting Christ’s keeping covenant with His church. So, if they can perform one type of unlawful marriage, they can, and are obligated to, perform gay marriage. The marriage hypocrisy of the fake church ends today. There will either be covenant marriages that follow the bible (one man, one woman for life, no divorce, no remarriage unless a first spouse dies and only to another who is lawfully free to marry), or there will be all types of irrelevant marriages allowed.

tiptopsaidhe on June 26, 2015 at 8:03 PM

tiptopsaidhe on June 26, 2015 at 8:03 PM

Do you have a specific church and pastor in mind or are you simply pontificating? It’s unwise to do blanket smears. Be grateful for their courage.

INC on June 26, 2015 at 8:54 PM

tiptopsaidhe on June 26, 2015 at 8:03 PM

With due respect, your theology concerning Biblical remarriage is incorrect. Biblical remarriage is permitted under three life circumstances: death of a spouse, adultery, and abandonment by a spouse, as reflected in 1 Cor 7, and Mt 19.

SheetAnchor on June 26, 2015 at 9:20 PM

So, if they can perform one type of unlawful marriage, they can, and are obligated to, perform gay marriage. The marriage hypocrisy of the fake church ends today. There will either be covenant marriages that follow the bible (one man, one woman for life, no divorce, no remarriage unless a first spouse dies and only to another who is lawfully free to marry), or there will be all types of irrelevant marriages allowed.

tiptopsaidhe on June 26, 2015 at 8:03 PM

That is some really F’d up rationalizing.

Basically what you are saying is if a person commits one sort of crime, then it is considered obligatory to commit other related crimes.

In this case here, you clearly don’t understand the topic and so you substitute truth with your opinion. So what we have here is if someone commits an imaginary crime, then they are obligated to commit actual crimes.

Reuben Hick on June 26, 2015 at 10:21 PM

except churches were never forced

Tlaloc on June 26, 2015 at 4:40 PM

Nice try, but your dishonesty is transparent around here.

GWB on June 26, 2015 at 11:07 PM

I’m not too concerned about how the court’s decision will affect my ability to turn down same sex couples asking for marriage.

I’ve refused to do weddings for people who don’t attend church except when there’s a wedding or funeral, or, maybe Christmas and Easter. Not all pastors agree with me about this, but my thought is, “If you don’t want, or have, God in your life, why do you want to get married in His presence?” Why do you want to take vows in front of God, knowing you don’t believe in God? Or, at least you don’t want anything to do with Him.

The government provides a means for those people to have a legal marriage relationship, so they can go to the government (justice of the peace)to get married. It’s a legal and honorable marriage for people who don’t have a relationship with Jesus.

The weddings I do are more than a legal agreement between two people. When I officiate a wedding it is performed in the sight of God, with the couple promising to honor God in their marriage. It is a spiritual and holy ceremony.

During the pre-marriage counseling if I determine it would be improper for me, for any reason to join two people in holy matrimony (maybe I can see one of them is a jerk and will wreck the marriage), that is my prerogative and my duty. So, my refusal to perform a wedding may be based on a number of criteria beyond the gender of the couple.

Oh, I’m sure someday a same sex couple may come and ask for a wedding, but they won’t be getting one from me.

Know It All on June 26, 2015 at 11:12 PM

Know It All on June 26, 2015 at 11:12 PM

Very good principles. The pastor who married my wife and I shared your views and felt that he was personally responsible for his part in the joining of two of God’s children in holy matrimony. Pre-marriage counseling was no walk in the park for us, but we were honest and open and it helped us out – both before and after the wedding.

Free Indeed on June 26, 2015 at 11:59 PM

In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate.

So the right of the SSM people to engage those who disagree is enshrined in the decision.

Why is that?

I thought that was already covered in the First Amendment.

JAL on June 27, 2015 at 12:09 AM

Tlaloc on June 26, 2015 at 4:40 PM

Moron.

S. D. on June 27, 2015 at 1:00 AM

So…

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy rules:

STFU

shorebird on June 27, 2015 at 3:41 AM

I strongly suspect Roberts ruled like he did on Obamacare in hopes of being able to sway people his way on SSM. A little bit of, “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.”

If so, it was a complete failure on both counts.

Which sounds about right for attempts at appeasement.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 26, 2015 at 4:49 PM

Roberts ruled like he did on Obamacare because we were basically asking him to overturn the law on a technicality. We are going to have to undo the law ourselves, not pray for Judicial rain.

Count to 10 on June 27, 2015 at 7:18 AM

Religious organizations might eventually send their members wishing to marry to the court house for the legal paperwork and enjoy a celebration in the church by calling it something else.
The sue happy anarchists within the gay community will effectively be cut off at the knee.

FireBlogger on June 27, 2015 at 10:35 AM

There is a name you are all going to soon learn.

David Gibbs Jr.

Founder of the Christian Law Association, he has never in his career charged a client. Operating purely on donations from individuals who believe in his work, and on his faith in God, he has been defending churches, pastors, private schools, and religious individuals against the tyranny of anti-Christian bigotry for over 45 years.

He’s also a pretty decent preacher himself, and coincidentally I will have the chance to see him tomorrow. If I can get a moment of his time I will ask him about this decision, if he doesn’t decide to speak on it from the pulpit.

He and his team are going to be very busy in the comings months, and I can think of few better uses for someone’s politically-determined donations than to support those who defend liberty in court.

Freelancer on June 27, 2015 at 1:13 PM

The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. … Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

Is it just my imagination, or did the SCOTUS just rule that children raised by unmarried parents are enduring child abuse?

eclark1849 on June 28, 2015 at 6:52 AM

Kennedy has know idea what a huge joke he has made of marriage as far as secular society is concerned.

MCGIRV on June 28, 2015 at 4:00 PM