Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Pagan
Love Wins, Justice Wins

Love Wins, Justice Wins

Last updated on: June 26, 2015 at 1:59 pm by John Beckett

Love Wins, Justice Wins 2015-06-26T13:59:31-06:00 John Beckett

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Praise to Thee Ma’at, Lady of Law and Justice,

You who is the fertile flame of the inner sun.
Restore our strength, we ask, that we may know You,
And in knowing You, we may do that which should be done.
Grant that all may be made right,
Grant that all may be made right.

Praise be to Ma’at and to all the Gods and Goddesses of Justice and all the Gods and Goddesses of Love! Marriage equality is now the law of the land in the United States.

The Ruling

Writing for the 5-4 Supreme Court majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said

The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them.

The 28 pages of the ruling build a legal, logical, and moral case to support this conclusion. To those who argue the court should leave this to the political process, Justice Kennedy says

Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

Or, as many of us have said before, you don’t get to vote on basic rights. Nobody voted on my marriage and I don’t expect to get to vote on anyone else’s.

The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

The Dissents

In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts went out of his way to express sympathy to same sex couples. Unlike Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, Justice Roberts understands he’s on the wrong side of history. But rather than doing the right thing, he fell back on the “redefining marriage” argument. He insists marriage is defined as one man and one woman and changing that requires legislation. He also argues that marriage was designed to promote reproduction and support children. Yet a simple observation of gay couples shows this definition is at best inaccurate, and a simple reading of history shows there have always been multiple reasons for marriage.

Justice Scalia said “The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes” – thus something as personal and fundamental as marriage is no different from tax policy.

Justice Thomas argued that human dignity is innate – and he’s right. But then he inexplicably argued “human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved.”

In Justice Thomas’ bizarre world, “dignity” is a meaningless phrase that makes no demands on anyone.

Justice Alito said “The question in these cases, however, is not what States should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.”

No, Justice Alito, it does. As the court’s majority correctly reasoned, the 14th Amendment makes that clear. “When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.”

A Philosophically Divided Court

Ma’at

If the Supreme Court was a church it would have schismed long ago over a key philosophical issue: is the Constitution dead or is it alive? More precisely, are the rights of citizens limited to those generally accepted at the time the Constitution and its amendments were ratified, with other rights being subject to the whims of a majority vote? Or do our rights flow from our inherent dignity and worth as living, breathing, human beings; enumerated generally in the Constitution and applied specifically as the need arises?

The conservative wing of the court takes the first position and argues that any change in the status quo requires explicit legislation. The liberal wing takes the second position and argues that while the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment may have been written to guarantee equal rights to freed slaves, its intent is clearly broader than that and applies to LGBT couples who want – and are entitled to – the same rights as straight couples.

This philosophical debate is both divisive and disruptive, but the Supreme Court cannot schism. It can only be filled with Justices who support one side or the other. If you think elections don’t matter, or that Obama is no better than Bush (and in many ways he isn’t), think about how this case would have been decided if instead of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, President McCain or President Romney had appointed two more Scalia clones.

There Are No States Rights

While I have enjoyed watching marriage equality spread across the nation state by state, I find the whole process offensive. The idea that Americans have less rights in some states than in others is fundamentally flawed. We are one nation, not fifty. It took a war to decide that issue, and a massive movement a hundred years later to confirm it.

Let states decide state issues. California obviously needs a different water policy than Tennessee. If the residents of Texas want lower taxes and lower services than the residents of New York, that’s their prerogative (I think it’s a bad choice, but it’s still a valid choice). But the idea that a couple can be legally married in one state but not another is logically absurd and practically unworkable.

The Real Issue

The real debate hasn’t been about whether same sex marriages are good or bad. LGBT couples have been forming families (here and elsewhere in the world) for long enough it’s clear their marriages are no worse and no better than those of straight couples. Couples who love and respect each other and work together for their common good will succeed – those who don’t, won’t. As important as marriage equality is to a free and fair society, and despite the loud and often irrational rhetoric from the anti-equality side, this issue is ultimately not about marriage.

The real issue is the normalization of homosexuality. And in the West, that battle has been decided, even if some die-hards won’t accept defeat. As gay people have come out of the closet and straight people have gotten to know them, their observations have led to a very simple conclusion: it’s no big deal.

There is simply no valid reason to deny equal rights to LGBT couples.

The Slippery Slope is a Logical Fallacy

This ruling does not address polyamorous marriages – they remain officially unrecognized. Perhaps they should also be recognized and perhaps they shouldn’t – this is a separate issue from same sex marriage. Right now I’m too busy celebrating this bit of justice to take up another debate.

To Conservative Religious Objectors

If you object to this ruling, I have good news for you: it doesn’t apply to you. The ruling does not invalidate your marriage. If you’re not married, you’re still free to marry someone of a different gender, or not marry at all – it’s still your choice. No one will force you to participate in a same sex wedding or even attend one. Your church can still decide who can get married in it and who can’t.

If you work in the wedding industry (that there is a wedding industry is troublesome, but that’s another rant for another time), I have more good news: you’re about to get all the business you can handle.

If you don’t want to serve same sex couples, this ruling is irrelevant – federal law already bans discrimination in public accommodations. If you do business with the public, you do business with ALL the public – you don’t get to pick and choose who you’ll serve and who you won’t. We settled that issue during the Civil Rights era.

The Arguments Are Over

I doubt the hard-core opponents of marriage equality will accept defeat. They’ll begin a campaign for a Constitutional amendment to undo this ruling. They have that legal right even if they have no moral right to do so. They will fail. The country has moved on, and today the Supreme Court recognized that happy fact.

I suspect some small-minded local bureaucrats and politicians will attempt to delay the implementation of this ruling, or simply defy it. They will be as wrong as George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door, and they will be no more successful.

Celebrate!

Today the long arc of the moral universe bent a little more closely towards justice. I am thrilled that my gay and lesbian friends can now have their marriages officially recognized even here in Texas. I look forward to attending more weddings and perhaps officiating a few. This is a great day for justice and a great day for love!

Previous Post

June 25, 2015

The Pope Gets It – A Pagan Look at Laudato Si’

Next Post

June 28, 2015 Our Work Is Not Done – Celebrate Anyway!

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Books Community CUUPS Druidry Foundations and Context Gods and Goddesses Magic Myth Nature Ritual Spiritual Practice Theology Travel Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Nain" mean in Hebrew?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Land of God City of refuge Holy place Pleasant