- Gay rights supporters celebrate after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to marry, outside the court in Washington on June 26, 2015. (Reuters)
Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling Reflects New Dimensions of Freedom
The Editorial Board – USA Today
After the United States was founded, it took the better part of a century for “equal” to include anyone besides property-owning white men, but the definition eventually broadened to include black Americans, women and people with disabilities.
Now it includes gays and lesbians. It’s about time.
The breadth and decisiveness of the majority’s opinion were welcome, even if the 5-4 margin signaled that the cultural war is far from over. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy dismissed all the usual weak arguments against gay marriage: that marriage must be between one man and one woman; that marriage is principally about procreation; and that gay marriage is an existential threat to heterosexual marriage.
Most important, Kennedy made it clear that the ability of same-sex couples to marry is a fundamental right that extends nationwide and not something states can ban — any more than states could decide to segregate schools or deny women the right to vote.
Against Redefining Marriage — And the Republic
The Editors – National Review
Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens — through the democratic process — to adopt their view,” Chief Justice John Roberts writes in his dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision today. “That ends today.” …
But this coda is one more blow against the idea that judges should interpret our laws, not write them. Because marriage is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, five justices of the Supreme Court wrote Friday, every state must recognize it to include homosexual couples. Thus ended their argument. The problem, naturally, is that whether marriage applies to same-sex couples depends on what marriage is. The Constitution is silent on that question, and judges should be too….
Pointing to other decisions striking down restrictions on the historical definition of marriage, as the majority did, does not justify redefining it. Kennedy writes correctly that courts should rule on violations of individual rights, but does not come near explaining how limiting marriage to its traditional definition amounts to such a violation.
President Obama praises Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage
I Don’t Perform Gay Marriages, but I Celebrate the Supreme Court Decision
Rabbi Brad Hirschfield – The Washington Post
The Supreme Court made history on Friday, that much is clear. What may be less clear, especially for those who do not support same-sex marriage, is that the 5-to-4 majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, merits celebration even by those who don’t agree with the conclusion reached. And to be totally transparent, I write those words as an Orthodox rabbi who does not officiate at same-sex marriages.
So why am I celebrating today? …
My “side” did not lose, because my side is never defined by any one position on a matter of ritual or liturgy, no matter how important that matter may be. My side, I hope, is God’s side, and the God in whom I believe is infinite…
In fact, to read Justice Kennedy’s words is to read a celebration of marriage in deeply conservative terms, in all but the choice of partner. In a nation where fewer and fewer people are choosing to marry, and choosing to marry much later when they make the choice at all, today’s decision defends traditional marriage, at least as much as it redefines it.
Just How Crazy Is the Cultural Change That Culminated in Obergefell v. Hodges?
Breitbart News
Tom Garrett at The Axis of Ego writes an astounding summary of what really has changed–and just how radical this “new normal” is…
In no particular order, it:
1. Successfully and fundamentally transformed the definition of “marriage,” and did so in a way that portrayed efforts to preserve traditional marriage as the novelty, rather than as the millennia-old status quo.
2. Successfully convinced a critical mass of the public that there is only one side in this debate, despite the fact that the side claiming the monopoly had only existed in any meaningful form for perhaps 20 years.
3. Successfully convinced a critical mass of the public that race and sexual orientation are directly analogous.