As citizens in this country, certainly same sex couples are entitled to these rights which are available only with a certificate of marriage. Wouldn’t the logical thing to do be to differentiate between a traditional marriage and a civil marriage? Civil marriages by a judge or civil servant are recognized by all 50 states and afforded the same tax and public benefits as a religious ceremony. And both require marital licenses. Many heterosexual couples choose not to be married in a church because none are in accordance with their beliefs so this is not a new precedent.
So the question I have to ask is, “Why did the Supreme Court feel compelled to redefine the word marriage, as understood by non-secularists, instead of simply saying civil marriages should be accessible by same sex partners across the 50 states? Had they simply cited precedent to affirm the idea that all citizens should have access to a license permitting a civil marriage, those practicing a particular religion and abiding by a particular system of beliefs would not now be compelled to practice their religion as dictated by the U.S. government. Clearly, by telling churches who they must marry or worshippers what they must believe, the Supreme Court has violated the separation of church and state. The repercussions of this ruling have far reaching consequences; there will now be government interference in parenting, in non-secular institutions of learning, and in private organizations run by people in accordance with their religious beliefs. This ruling is in violation of the 1st Amendment. Whether you are for or against same sex marriage is not at question here. The goal of marriage could have been achieved without the government elevating one set of beliefs over another.
How can this be resolved? If the Legislative Branch of government had the stomach for it, they would begin impeachment against the Supreme Court judges who showed such contempt for the rule of law in this country. Meanwhile, Jonathan Merritt writes in, “If the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage in 2015, how will evangelicals respond?”
If the court were to “redefine marriage,” Moore [Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention] said Christians should “be ready to offer an alternative vision of marriage and family” that doesn’t include same-sex unions. Interestingly, his vision would be promoted primarily within the church rather than changing laws through political action.
As I pointed out in Majority Rules in Judicial Activism,
An easy way around this is to leave religion and marriages to the churches. We simply must stop expecting government to legislate morality. Morality begins in the home. As the 1st Amendment is written,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
This first freedom is a fundamental right, one which is to be protected by our government. If the judges who committed this violation of this fundamental right are not themselves brought to justice, state legislatures need to start exercising the powers reserved to the states. Following the example of Alabama, Alabama Senate Passes Bill to Effectively Nullify All Sides on Marriage, whose legislature introduced Senate Bill 377,
SB377 would end state issued marriage licenses, while providing marriage contracts as an alternative. It passed through the Alabama state Senate by a 22-3 margin on May 19;
The intent or motives behind this bill are a moot point. By removing the state from the equation, no one can force another to accept their marriage, nor can they force another to reject that person’s own beliefs regarding an institution older than government.
“Licenses are used as a way to stop people from doing things,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “My personal relationship should not be subject to government permission.”
Michael Suede explains in, “Marriage Licenses Are A Racist Crime Against Humanity,”
Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.
With the 14th Amendment, no states should have even had the authority to outlaw such marriages, let alone license them. At the very least, such a practice would have gone the way of separate but equal during the civil rights movement. Instead, federal government expanded this power to license, over all marriages. The government took this power in 1923. Michael Suede continues,
In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.
Michael Suede has a very strong opinion about this practice.
Being granted permission to marry someone by a gang of criminal thieves is the lowest form of submission to State authority a plebe could ever engage in.
He suggests his readers follow his lead and, “reject the notion that the State has the authority to sanction [my] marriage.
I am inclined to agree.