The Good and Bad of the Supreme Courts hearing on Sodomite Unions

Many have said that it is good that the Supreme Court is going to hear the cases concerning sodomite unions. There are those who believes that the Court ruling can put an end to all this fighting. If the Court rules states can decide for themselves whether or not to allow people of the same sex be included in the definition of marriage, then the issue will be put to rest. That new lawsuits from Christians will come down to overturn hefty fines. I think that such thinking has failed to recognize the doggedness of the Gay Rights activists.

It seems fool hearty to claim victory so soon. Just as it was when we saw the mainly left-leaning California, ban sodomite unions. The fight may well just be getting started. Most states, either voting an amendment to their constitution or a referendum to ban the practice. And the decision of the Court will have to choose to force its morality on the states or overturn multiple lower federal cases.

There is also the chance that the Court will weigh the fact that by one decision, they would be annulling thousands of so-called marriages. Legally performed ceremonies that they will now either have to recognize or abolish. Neither choice will be pleasant.   But there were good questions asked by both sides.

Christian News reports

The U.S. Supreme Court was divided on Tuesday as it heard oral argument over states’ rights surrounding the definition of marriage, with some justices expressing a hesitancy to change the definition for one particular type of relationship.

There was a telling exchange. It points to the problem with this change of law, and expresses the Christian view very clearly

“[H]ere we have a whole class of people who are denied the equal right to be able to join in this very extensive government institution that provides protection for families,” attorney Mary Bonauto told the court.

“[Y]ou’re not seeking to join the institution; you’re seeking to change what the institution is,” Chief Justice John Roberts replied. “The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite sex relationship, and you want to introduce into it a same-­sex relationship.”

We see that the sodomite wants not to join a sacred institution, he wants to remake that institution into something heretofore unknown to mankind. He wants to place all the credit for marriage on the government. As if this sacred institution was the gift of the government, rather than the gift and mandate of God.

Then we see the other side and how they have ignored the definition of marriage and seek still to make the case into a civil rights issue.

“In all of these [past Supreme Court] cases what we’ve talked about is a right to marry. We didn’t try to define the right more particularly. Is there a right to interracial marriage? Is there a right to marry if you’re a prisoner? We just said there’s a right to marry that is fundamental and that everybody is entitled to it unless there’s some good reason for the state to exclude them,” Kagan noted. “So, why shouldn’t we adopt the exact same understanding here?”

And Chief Justice John Roberts Asked

“Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case,” he said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

It may be unwise to hope that the federal government will allow the states their rightful authority. The issue, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, is one of the Constitution. What does the Constitution say concerning marriage? Absolutely nothing. This means then that neither they nor the federal judges beneath them have any say in marriage at all. The Court, if true to what the Constitution says, will strike down all rulings from federal judges and give the issue back to the states to decide.

But, as I have already stated, do not get your hopes up.