Supreme Court Strikes Down Traditional Definition of Marriage. What’s Next?

NOTE: The views expressed herein do not represent the official position of CatholicVote.org. We present this commentary to help you form your own opinion.

 

 


Supreme Court Gay Marriage

News just broke that the Supreme Court has struck down the federal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This is an extremely disappointing development, but not a surprising one. This trajectory has been set in stone for quite some time.

I’ve become increasingly convinced in recent years that the only way to keep government from re-defining marriage is to keep them out of it altogether. That position has been rejected by a lot of Catholics, and I can understand why, but I respectfully think this is proof of why they’ve been wrong.

It’s also proof of why whenever we centralize power over moral and social issues at the federal government level, there is an inevitable moment when that moral imperative is turned against us. We give them an inch, and they take a mile. The American people don’t want this, just like they don’t want unfettered abortion or Obamacare. But that has ceased to matter. He who has the power makes the rules, and we’ve handed them the power through our activism to have Washington involved in legislating every social issue we care about.

It’s time to stop the madness. George Washington said it best: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” If we want to stop the government from continuing to destroy our sacred rights, our civil liberties, we must starve it. We must deprive it of power. We must remind those in Washington that they have forgotten their place, that they serve us, not the other way around.

So what’s next? What does today’s ruling mean?

First, it means that we’ve lost the war for the definition of marriage. A tiny minority of the population has changed thousands of years of social tradition. I can’t fault those who will fight this decision and organize around it, but in my view, their fight will never rise above a valiant, but ultimately futile, effort.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, this paves the way for the Catholic Church to become a hate group. When Father Joseph tells the homosexual couple that he can’t celebrate their “wedding” ceremony, he’ll be on trial for hate crimes and discrimination before he knows it. The First Amendment, like the Second, the Fourth, the Fifth, and the Tenth is being thrown under the bus.

This also means that religious groups, if they want to retain any semblance of autonomy, are going to have to give up their tax-exempt status. It’s done. The government wants its pound of flesh. Even without tax-exempt status, it’s not any guarantee that the “hate crime” designation or discrimination lawsuits can be avoided — just ask the business in Colorado being sued for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple or the photographer in New Mexico still in hot water over refusing to photograph a gay “wedding” or the florist in Washington state being sued BY THE STATE for not providing flowers, again, for a gay “wedding.”

If you think these incidents are outliers, you’re living in a fantasy world. Cases like this will come faster and faster following the ruling today. The government is using intimidation to force its agenda, from the IRS intimidation of tea parties to these lawsuits against Christian businesses to the threat of constant and overarching surveillance.

And boy oh boy I can’t wait until just opposing gay marriage on moral grounds becomes a crime, and they can then go into the big archive of emails and phone calls in the NSA database and find all the evidence of us talking about it in the past. Suddenly, you’re a political dissident, after the fact.

I wish I could offer a solution. I’ve got a lot of thinking and praying to do, as do we all.

UPDATE: In an early report, I thought that I had heard that Justice John Roberts was in the majority, and had reported such here. I’m now seeing reports that he was part of the dissenting group. I wanted to clarify the facts for the record, and I apologize for the error.

4,053 views

Categories:Breaking News Marriage Politics

5 thoughts on “Supreme Court Strikes Down Traditional Definition of Marriage. What’s Next?

  1. Tina In Ashburn says:

    Steve what you say is correct if we take the trajectory of past history to predict the future.

    The objective has always been to destroy the Catholic Church because she is the only organization that effectively opposes any evil. The world has been crawling towards this objective since the so-called Enlightenment but now as time is running out for the demons, we will see more evil transpire faster and faster. This will not stop until the Church looks extinguished, just as Christ was murdered and buried. The Church must also go through Her Passion. Yes, the good will suffer. Count on it, unless you want to cave for the sake of some earthly attachment you deem better than your eternal life.

    Folks may describe this as gloom and doom, but I would rather see evil brought into the light, be prepared, and see the truth. Truth is refreshing.

  2. Zakarias says:

    This is a grave tone you set sir, sadly I believe you are right. I have felt for years that people will keep pushing till YOU set boundaries, and they are doing exactly that. First case is a transgender that is trying to get the ability to use either gender marked restroom, the actor of the new spider man is warping the hero’s story by trying to make him gay (spider-man) and that’s just plain wrong. And anyone that claims to have a brain cell will know it’s wrong too. I imagine we will soon see some of the stupidest demands upon the rest of the folk of USA. And the Government will use this as a means to look good and come off as the “savior” of the people (and groups with special interest groups) and will have a following of fools, and pretty soon the proud and once majestic empire that is America, is lost. I agree the people that do not support this line of governance should protest by shutting down and not complying with the work day. we will see how long the white house will last, before they crawl with hands and knees and begs us to continue with the “system”.

  3. Woah, these are some outlandish doom-and-gloom predictions. While I think you’re right to predict that the fight for traditional marriage as the legal definition of marriage is ultimately futile, I think you are flat-out wrong to suggest that this will result in Catholic churches losing their tax-exempt status. Their is a huge gulf between SCOTUS’s decisions and such a development. It’s also disingenuous (and downright uncharitable according to the Catechism) not to take gay-marriage supporters at their words when they say they are not writing to force gay marriage upon churches. Comparing the status of churches and religious non-profits to small businesses being sued for discrimination is apples & oranges, at least form the perspective of the law.

    For a more sane reaction, I suggest people see the statement released by the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.

  4. Julie T. says:

    Steve, the gloomy view you set out here may or may not come to pass, but one thing is certain: rights not enumerated in the Constitution are on a headlong collision course with rights that ARE enumerated in it. For nearly two decades, people on both sides of social innovation issues have acknowledged that the collision is inevitable and will also be decided by the Supreme Court. This particular minority’s unacknowledged aim is to force “approval” through coercive means and silence their critics. My feeling is that it should be settled sooner rather than later. They and their leftist political allies use state and federal courts to harass those who disagree with them (however respectfully) and drain them of resources. We should go all in and force the Supreme Court to either uphold the First Amendment or tell the world our Constitution is essentially a sham.

  5. Isserus says:

    Seems you need some clarification, Roberts and Scalia were in the majority in Hollingsworth (prop 8 case) surprisingly, Kennedy was in the minority. Windsor (DOMA case) split amongst predictable lines with Kennedy and the four liberal judges in the majority striking it down.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.