Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That

   < < Go Back

from The Gray Area:

If there are any fans of Seinfeld out there, you probably remember the Outing episode where the main characters were discussing homosexuality and issued this phrase. They would use this convenient politically correct phrase to cover their ‘lack of enthusiasm’ for the lifestyle. Immediately following a statement like, “I’m not homosexual?”, they would say, “not that there is anything wrong with that”. That phrase comes to mind as I reflect on today’s Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. Gays have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which includes getting married. “Not that there is anything wrong with that.”

I don’t believe that in and of itself, most people in America think one way or the other about the question of gay marriage. Only the minority for and against on each extreme want to fight the issue. If not for the special interest politics and media frenzy surrounding the question, the reaction is, “so, okay, there is not anything wrong with that”.

It does become an issue for everyone else when you force people to support you. Force people to say only positive things. Force people of faith to have to ignore their beliefs, which by the way, also teach them to be tolerant and loving to all peoples, even LGBT, “not that there is anything wrong with that”. So, to bring this issue to the courts, and frame it under gay marriage, means we focus the discussion on the wrong issue and the Court has to make a decision on the wrong issue. There is no issue with gays getting married. There is only an issue when you infringe on other people’s rights. The court did not decide that, it made it worse.

For the second time in two days the Supreme Court has issued a ruling with wide national interest. In yesterday’s Obamacare ruling, I commented that Chief Justice Roberts appeared to be consistently trying NOT to lead an activist Court, by consistently taking the side of the Constitution and the rule of law, whether some like it or not. In today’s decision, he took the other side, whether some like it or not. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. The four conservatives filed four separate dissenting opinions, each of which some of the others joined. “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision,” wrote Chief Justice Roberts… “But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

When we bring these political issues to the Supreme Court and they get decided instead of along the rule of law, but by feelings and political leanings, then you have an activist Court decision.

In the 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his fourth major gay-rights ruling, was joined in the majority by the Court’s four liberal justices— Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The five liberal justices strongly endorsed the notion that the Constitution is a living document, subject to the views of a rotating cadre of enlightened judges. While the Founding Fathers did not specify a right to same-sex “marriage,” the justices wrote that they possessed “a better informed understanding” of how “to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”

Of this decision justice Scalia stated that “They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment,” Justice Scalia wrote of the majority, “a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.”

Justices Ginsburg and Kagan have performed same-sex “marriage” ceremonies, calling into question their impartiality and possibly breaking judicial ethics, they should have recused themselves from this ruling. But they didn’t, and we have a political decision from the bench which will solve nothing, only further divide.

This lack of resolution by the decision was made clear today in a statement from Texas Values, “This decision has no basis in the text of the Constitution and will never be accepted by millions of Americans and Texans that understand that marriage, by nature and God’s design, can only be the union of a man and woman, husband and wife, mother and father. No decision by five judges can ever alter this fundamental truth. Just as with Roe v. Wade in 1973, the Court will not resolve this matter. This ruling will not bring consensus, rather it will further divide America.

President Obama further illustrates the partisan political nature of the decision, by saying “justice arrived like a thunderbolt”. When he speaks of Supreme Court decisions you can be 100% certain they are politically based comments. He will scold the high court on national television during the State of the Union address for decisions he does not like. In this referenced case using points that are not true which was immediately noted by Justice Samuel Alito. But, then stretching the truth is nothing knew to the President, now is it. But, that’s another issue, as is this Court decision vs the question of gay marriage.

There is nothing wrong with a gay couple getting married. They do not have the right to get married in a Catholic Church, or any other church that disagrees as a tenant of that faith, however. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens …and no state shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities … [or] deprive any citizen of life, liberty or property …” There is nothing in the Constitution about lifestyle issues other than the broad category of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, there is nothing wrong with that.

It does not state that any one’s life, liberty or pursuit of happiness is better or worse than the other. When you make a decision like this you decide to make one right better than another. By doing so you draw the line in the sand that otherwise did not exist. And, there is something wrong with that.