Orthodox Christians Must Now Learn To Live as Exiles in Our Own Country: “we have to accept that we really are living in a culturally post-Christian nation. The fundamental norms Christians have long been able to depend on no longer exist. To be frank, the court majority may impose on the rest of the nation a view widely shared by elites, but it is also a view shared by a majority of Americans. There will be no widespread popular resistance to Obergefell. This is the new normal.
For another, LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives. The Supreme Court has now, in constitutional doctrine, said that homosexuality is equivalent to race. The next goal of activists will be a long-term campaign to remove tax-exempt status from dissenting religious institutions. The more immediate goal will be the shunning and persecution of dissenters within civil society. After today, all religious conservatives are Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla who was chased out of that company for supporting California’s Proposition 8 [a legal position, remember, that was supported by a majority of Californians and only overturned by judicial decree].
Third, the Court majority wrote that gays and lesbians do not want to change the institution of marriage, but rather want to benefit from it. This is hard to believe, given more recent writing from gay activists like Dan Savage expressing a desire to loosen the strictures of monogamy in all marriages. Besides, if marriage can be redefined according to what we desire — that is, if there is no essential nature to marriage, or to gender — then there are no boundaries on marriage. Marriage inevitably loses its power.
In that sense, social and religious conservatives must recognize that the Obergefell decision did not come from nowhere. It is the logical result of the Sexual Revolution, which valorized erotic liberty. It has been widely and correctly observed that heterosexuals began to devalue marriage long before same-sex marriage became an issue. The individualism at the heart of contemporary American culture is at the core of Obergefell — and at the core of modern American life.
This is profoundly incompatible with orthodox Christianity. But this is the world we live in today.”
To the “free to be, you and me” Boomer generation, this is the result of 1960’s let-your-freak-flag-fly no-penalty thinking. Note that this is not the end result. It’s simply a stop along the journey. Where does this train lead? One thing you can be absolutely certain of: it won’t stop at your own personal definition of enough. Sooner or later society will speed past what you personally consider to be ‘far enough’ and go rocketing off into the darkness. When people say “oh! but now things are bad!”, please remember those of us that stressed rule of law and strict reading of legal language as opposed to the dangerous “intentional interpretation” that we’ve gotten lately. Laws must be interpreted according to the actual language (“lawyer speak” that, for all its obtuseness, has evolved specifically to make things clear and incontrovertible). Once judges begin interpreting and enforcing laws based not on the words but on the perceived intent of the writers, then we enter into a very dangerous area where what IS can be manufactured easily from what we WANT, not from what is clearly written (see: King v. Burwell).
From this article:
“The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent,” Roberts writes in his dissent. “Just who do we think we are?”
However, the chief justice also seemed to recognize that this was a landmark decision, which would likely be viewed positively in the future.
Writing that he has “no choice but to dissent,” Roberts made it clear that his decision was based in the “restrained conception of the judicial role,” rather than a personal view of the definition of marriage. As he writes:
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer…
…”Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role … They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges.”
Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration …
If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
If you get what is to you a right result but obtain it using a terrible means, do not be surprised when that same means is used against you to further what you thought to be enough well past that point.
UPDATE: A prescient article from not too long ago.