Homosexual Marriage Decision by SCOTUS

In the last few days, the Supreme Court of the United States has made some history-altering decisions. Incredible as it may seem, the decisions certainly are of the same importance as the Roe vs. Wade or Dred Scott vs. Sandford cases, decisions legalizing abortion and determining that Negroes, whether slaved or free were not American citizens, respectively. The reason is that the decision that homosexual marriage is legal, as well as the aforementioned ones of days past go against the very spirit of the constitution in very concrete ways.

Most importantly, the Supreme Court has acted as if they give rights, or endow them to the citizens of the United States. This is directly against the founding father’s intent for this nation as in the Declaration of Independence they penned,” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It is clear that the rights of which those in our government talk do not proceed from their doings, but from a higher source. Additionally, in the Constitution, there is no mention of the responsibility or power to declare marriage lawful or not. It does not rest with our elected officials. The only principles for marriage proceed from God, and the government must follow those in all the ways government must touch the matter. Amendment 9 states that, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This further puts the nail in the coffin, as since marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, it lies with the people. There are many layers of safeguards to keep our government from doing what it has just done.

In this article, the author says that to compare the recent decision to other bad ones of the past like Dred Scott, shows a loss of perspective, thinking like many that the redefinition of marriage is not a foundational challenge of both the constitution and the moral structure of this country. Both are false. A response to Rick Santorum’s reference to similar court cases mirrors the idea, holding that religious liberties are not threatened by such a change. The underlying misunderstanding is that government can be neutral. However, no one and nothing can be truly neutral. To allow something is to endorse it, and as a nation we have endorsed immorality. If the moral compass of government goes, so shall the prosperity of the nation. On a constitutional level, since our country was descriptively built as a Christian nation on Christian principles as given authority by God, to chip away at that aspect of government is to chip away at what holds us together.