Same-sex marriage: The Supreme Court was right, but they also failed us

As I'm sure you can tell from my title, I am going to express some views that I feel go directly against the lesson. I hope that I will be able to explain my reasoning clearly and thoroughly enough that you will at least understand why I have my viewpoint.

In this week's lesson, we're discussing the Supreme Court ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges, which is the case that opened the legality of same-sex marriages throughout the United States. After viewing the materials associated with this lesson, it is my opinion that the Supreme Court was correct in making the change. Moreso, I believe the Supreme Court was the exact forum for this case. As it is written in our laws, it is the Court's place and duty to hear such cases.

The majority largely cited the Due Process Clause in allowing the change. I don't think this was the right route to take, despite agreeing with the end result. As Justice Alito pointed out in his dissenting opinion, the case of Washington v. Glucksberg determined that the Due Process Clause is limited by tradition. This particular case from 1997 was regarding a person's right to physician-assisted suicide. The Court unanimously voted against that right, saying that "Anglo-American common law has punished or otherwise disapproved of assisting suicide for over 700 years" (text may be found on page 702 here). Three of the justices who stood in concurrence with this 1997 ruling (namely Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer) were found in the majority in the 2015 same-sex marriage ruling. This demonstrates the action of picking and choosing different pieces from the Constitution and its Amendments to conform to personal bias, which should not be happening within the Court.

In the dissenting opinion written by Justice Roberts (specifically Sec. II.B.4 found on page 23), it is stated that "there has been
insufficient democratic discourse before deciding an issue so basic as the definition of marriage." Here, Justice Roberts is guilty of falling into the misconception that many in the United States do. It is to be remembered that the United States is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. Our founding fathers formed our nation as a constitutional republic instead of a democracy because they saw that a democracy could turn into mob-rule under the proper conditions. While I do not hold the gay rights movement nearly as high as the Civil Rights Movement, to say the Court robbed the citizenship of the United States of the democratic process in making a decision on Obergefell v. Hodges is to say that the Court did the same in such landmark cases as Brown v. Board of Education. It is to remembered that the Supreme Court is concerned strictly with the constitutionality of laws, not the morality of them.

All of this being said, same-sex marriage is still wrong in the eyes of the Lord. It wasn't the majority opinion who failed us, but those offering the dissenting vote. They put all their energy into trying to make a legal case for a moral law, which isn't possible under our legal system. Instead of doing this, the dissenting justices should have focused on making sure that the First Amendment rights were still in force for those who have a moral objection to same-sex marriage. In some municipalities in the United States, the various city councils have made it a crime to speak ill toward individuals who identify as having same-sex attraction and to some employers, making a statement in favor of traditional marriage is enough to have the person fired. This should have been countered to some extent in the Supreme Court decision, but the opportunity has since passed.

To illustrate my next point, I first will use an example from my mission in Omaha, Nebraska (for those who don't know about LDS Missions, you can learn more from this BBC article). My companion and I were spending our afternoon looking at shops downtown when a black man came up to us and asked us if he had the mark of Cain. We were very up front with him and explained that we believe dark skin was a curse given to Cain after he killed his brother, but that that mark in no way means that this man was either responsible for that sin himself, should be an outcast or was even descendant from him. Surprisingly, he then expressed gratitude for us being so straight forward, saying that he had asked several missionaries in the past and that that was the first time he got a direct answer.

As members of the Church, we have a solemn duty to uphold the rule of law while at the same time publishing truth. As the world descends further away from God, we can expect the laws of the land to do the same, especially when it comes to moral subjects. We can accept this truth while still standing as a beacon to the world as righteous individuals among our friends as well as in the political realm. People truly looking for truth and happiness will be drawn toward our message, but if we don't make that message available, they will not know where to turn and can be lost in the dark paths mentioned in Lehi's dream. The ruling on same-sex marriage did not change our ability to testify, nor will it change the manner in which we do so. Christ's message has always been about love, and as we extend the hand of fellowship to everyone interested, the work will continue to roll forth.

PS - It is actually my opinion that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, but that's another story for another day.