Liberals: Now is not a time to rejoice. The Supreme Court has changed its ruling on multiple cases in the past. View Lochner v. New York (1905), Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923), Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), Adler v. Board of Education (1952), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), Pace v. Alabama (1883), Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (1990), Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), Wolf v. Colorado (1949), Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and Plessy v. Ferguson. Furthermore, although unlikely, the states could adopt a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman. Why then should gays and lesbians place their faith in a handful of arbitrary people who are rotated through every decade or so? Also, the ruling still does not grant gay couples all rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Adoption is a good example of this. Gay couples will still not be able to adopt in many states due to state laws. Additionally, there are still many states with constitutional amendments preventing gay marriage.
Conservatives: How often do republicans quote, “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” (US Declaration Ind.)? One cannot call themselves champions of limited government while at the same time advocating for that same government to become so expansive, and intrusive that it has its nose in the bedroom of American citizens. Two consenting adults have the right to do as they please in the privacy of their own home. Individual discretion is a core principle of liberty. The fact is, and always has been that gay and lesbian Americans are treated as sub-human with regard to taxation, hospital visitation, spousal rights, etc. in the eyes of the law. Is justice bind, or is it not?
Solution?– Marriage is a long standing religious paradigm and government has placed its nose where it does not belong– In religion. The ruling could open the door for individuals to sue the church for not allowing them to marry. This is a dangerous path to walk as the State begins to look more like America’s church.
“Look, I understand the emotional positions held by folks on both sides of the gay marriage issue. But let’s take a step back and consider the absurdity: we’ve essentially empowered five judges to define one of societies most basic relationships for all 350-plus million people in the United States. Not too many years ago – my marriage would have been illegal (Note this was a construct of the state. ) Many people still don’t approve of interracial marriage. I don’t care. I don’t need the Supreme Court, the state of Kentucky, or quite frankly – you – to validate my relationship. While we debated “separation of church and state” across the political aisle, we turned the state into a church, with federal courts sitting in judgement as the supreme ecclesiastical authority.”
If the federal government wishes to make a statement that marriage should be neutral perhaps it should realize that marriage is not one of the 22 enumerated powers granted to it by the Constitution. A worthy cause for both sides would be to shrink the size of the federal government, and rein in the powers, which legislate from the bench. Conservatives would benefit from the downsizing of bureaucracy and government. Liberals would benefit from having ambivalence forever removed from the equation.