Now that the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue of “same sex marriage”, hopefully the furor over this can now end. This issue has clearly illustrated the divide both on the court itself and in the two major political parties. The dissenters on the Supreme Court spoke about “human dignity” and that the government cannot give it or take it away. What nonsense! How can one state say same sex marriage is legal in their state, and a neighboring state prohibits it? Does this not take away human dignity by governmental action or inaction? If someone is convicted of a crime and imprisoned, does not the government act to take away the criminal’s dignity?
With millions of people affected by this case, it is gratifying that the rule of law has triumphed over religion. One can believe whatever they want, and they are free to do so. Their interpretation of the Bible cannot and should not be used as a prohibition to those who do not feel the same way. To usurp a person’s freedom because their beliefs do not coincide with yours is simply wrong. While we are on the subject of the Bible, does it not say that God is the ultimate judge? If this is the case, then let God be the judge, not your interpretation.
This decision will provide ample basis to show the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Republicans are a faith-based, evangelical party now. It will not be surprising if no Republican candidate will embrace this decision. No doubt this will be a new version of the Mitt Romney comment of 47% like him, 47% of the electorate hate him and the remaining 6% will decide the election. In this case, a perpetuation of the 6% going away from the Republicans is a virtual lock. The real question then becomes, can the Republicans do anything to get back a majority of the electorate and win the Presidential election? The Supreme Court decision was on a 5-4 vote. The conservative wing of the Court was in lock step against the gay marriage case. This was hardly surprising. I find it amazing how judges can condone any type of discrimination. The Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right. Then how can you attempt to foreclose access to this right because of a religious interpretation?
Did the court get it right? Wrong? Indifferent? Many of the landmark cases in our system were decided on slim margins of victory for one side. Over time, this case should fall back into history with the question of “what is the big hub bub?”
What say you, the court of public opinion?