Not Only Will the Children Suffer

 

 

There have been a number of court rulings in the last century that have had unfavorable effects on the family unit and marriage.  The 1969 Divorce Reform Act allowing “no fault” divorce to become the norm, causing a “child-centered” Nation to become a “me-centered” one.  In 1973, the Supreme Court Case, Roe v. Wade, made abortion legal.  This was another travesty to the rights of the children.

The most recent attack on the family unit came under the disguise of protecting civil rights. It happened on June 26, 2015, when Obergefell v. Hodges was decided by the United States Supreme Court.  That decision, which was unconstitutionally made, said same-sex couples have a fundamental right to be married.  Changing a long held tradition and belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, and more importantly, forgetting that children need a married father AND a mother for the most advantageous environment to be raised in. (Amato 2005)

“As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs.  Just who do we think we are?” (Supreme Court Chief Justice C. J. Roberts, Obergefell v. Hodges 2015)

 

I read the Opinion of the Supreme Court Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015 ruling.  This turned out to be an extremely interesting read.  I learned the reasoning behind the 5 Justices (the majority) that ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, and the reasoning behind the 4 Justices that dissented.  

If you have not read it, I would suggest you do so.  A highly enlightening and entertaining read.  If you don't have the time to read 103 pages.  Start with this blog.  I have captured some particularly interesting quotes (there were many) by the Chief Justices of dissent.   

You may find them interesting as well.

  

Chief Justice Roberts, who voted against the same-sex marriage decision, spoke of the nature of marriage, 

“It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.” (C. J. Roberts, Obergefell v. Hodges 2015)

 

“The premises supporting this concept of marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman. When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.  Society has recognized that bond as marriage.” (C. J. Roberts, Obergefell v. Hodges 2015)

This is all pretty straight forward...common sense even.  Chief Justice Roberts uses the 1828 Webster Dictionary to remind us of the long time definition of marriage.

Marriage

MAR'RIAGE, noun [Latin mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

I Googled the word “Marriage” to see if there was any difference now.  I found this "new" definition of marriage:

 

mar·riage

ˈmerij/

noun

noun: marriage; plural noun: marriages

1.

the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).

 (Searched on 04 May 2017)

 

No more mention of children.  They have been taken out of the equation.  We keep letting our children down and then wondering why society has a serious problem with respect and common decency.  

Children are not the only victims either.  There have been other important issues taken out of the equation when this decision was passed.  The democratic process was overhauled.

“By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide.”   

 (C. J. Roberts, Obergefell v. Hodges 2015)

 

Chief Justice Roberts is saying this decision was taken out of the hands of the People.  The majority (5 Chief Justices) ignored the Democratic process.  This has opened up the opportunity for conflict with Religious Freedom, which is a Constitutional Right.

“Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution. 

"Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice.

The majority’s decision imposing same- sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

"Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples...” (C. J. Roberts, Obergefell v. Hodges 2015)

We have already seen this come to pass.  People being sued, persecuted, and losing jobs if they do not offer their services to same-sex couples.  Religious Freedoms are already being stepped on.  People who believe in the tradition of marriage as being between a man and woman are being persecuted as bigots.    

What is Religious Freedom? ~ YouTube video 4:24 

 

"It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted.”

(Chief Justice J. Alito, Obergefell v. Hodges 2015)

Religious Freedom is our First Freedom ~ YouTube video 2:54 

 

This decision gives me strong cause to be worried about a Government that can overstep the legal process so openly, so proudly, and so effectively.  

 Only 11 states had voted in favor of same-sex marriage when these 5 judges decided for the People, and changed the Constitution of America, as well as the Constitution of Marriage.  11 states out of 50!  That means the majority (39 States) of America did not want this.  These 5 Supreme Court Justices made a decision for the People, but not the majority of the People.
 Not only will the children suffer from this decision; but the democratic system and religious freedoms will suffer as well.

 

Preserving Religious Freedom ~ LDS.org video 8:44  

 

 

"By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority.” (Chief Justice J. Thomas, Obergefell v. Hodges 2015)

(U.S. Constitution, Article 1)

  It is time to stand up.  America is run by a democratic government not a monarchy.  This is a call to action.  This is not a issue against LGBT.  

It is an issue FOR the Children, FOR Religious Freedoms, and FOR our Constitution.

I hope you will look into this subject on your own and get involved.  The Constitution is hanging by a thread.  Children are being forgotten.  We need to take action.  We need to protect the children as well as this country.   

Work Sited:

Alito, J. Supreme court of the united states, obergefell et al. v. hodges. Opinion of the Court. 576 U. S. Jun. 26. 2015.

Amato, Paul R. The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social, and emotional well-being of the next generation. 
Futureofchildren.org. Vol. 15. No. 2. 75-90. Fall 2005. 

Google. Online search engine. Marriage. 04 May 2017.

Roberts, C. J. Supreme court of the united states, obergefell et al. v. hodges. Opinion of the Court. 576 U. S. Jun. 26. 2015.

Thomas, J. Supreme court of the united states, obergefell et al. v. hodges. Opinion of the Court. 576 U. S. Jun. 26. 2015.

Webster Dictionary. 1828 Online Edition. 
 http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/marriage

**All photos found on the net, photo credit given when available.