‘No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.’ — Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority
‘Our Constitution — like the Declaration of Independence before it — was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from — not provided by — the State. Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on “due process” to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society.’ — Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissenting opinion
It didn’t take long for opinion writers to weigh in on Friday’s momentous Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriage across the country. Here is just a small sampling of some of the commentary we found in national publications that gave us some new understanding of the issue. What is your view on the matter? As always, we want to hear from you. Email rrollins@coxohio.com to continue the conversation.
FROM THE CENTER: Jennifer Rubin, in the Washington Post
In a not altogether surprising but certainly historic ruling, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that there is a 14th Amendment right for gays to marry. I say it that way because irate opponents of gay marriage will assert that the court invented a right to gay marriage. It did not, and the distinction is critical. In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy writes:
“That history is the beginning of these cases. The respondents say it should be the end as well. To them, it would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held — and continues to be held — in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world. The petitioners acknowledge this history but contend that these cases cannot end there. Were their intent to demean the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners’ claims would be of a different order. But that is neither their purpose nor their submission. To the contrary, it is the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the petitioners’ contentions. This, they say, is their whole point. Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect — and need — for its privileges and responsibilities.” …
Anticipating a complaint from social conservatives, Kennedy went out of his way to write, “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.”
Would it have been better for the country to have reached this conclusion democratically, following the process on a state-by-state basis? That is the best argument against the ruling — that a decision this monumental is the province of elected branches of government. But Kennedy argues that when the court finds a violation of the Constitution (or discovers the meaning of a constitutional provision as it did here), there is no option to wait.
The decision is in essence confirmation that the tide of inclusion flows in one direction and that the habit of tolerance is deeply embedded in the fabric of American society. Unlike the Obamacare case, this decision really does put an end to the argument since it is unfathomable that there could be enough support for a constitutional amendment. Voices that preach resistance to the court are irresponsible and unworthy of attention, let alone public office. One can believe as a religious matter that same-sex marriage is not marriage at all, but as a civil matter, the ship has sailed.
Republicans opposed to gay marriage will huff and puff. But, yes, this takes a difficult issue off the table for Republicans. They can move on. Social conservatives can attend to the shabby state of heterosexual marriage, to poverty and to other matters of both religious and social concern. The moment will be revealing, however, for what it reveals about the 2016 presidential contenders. Who is unhinged? Who is calm? Who is hateful, and who is presidential? We will have plenty to talk about in the days ahead.
FROM THE LEFT: Vanessa Vitiello Urquhart, in Slate
I’m finally married to my wife!
A little less than a month after our wedding last summer, my wife and I moved from Massachusetts to Tennessee. With the move, the legal standing of our union went from firm to shaky. Although we’ve found Knoxville to be a friendly, welcoming place where both the laws and attitudes toward same-sex partnerships are relatively modern, Tennessee consistently ranks among the worst states for gays and lesbians because of its commitment to blocking any sort of recognition or protections for LGBTQ people. For the most part, ensconced in our tolerant little college town, the punitive state laws didn’t affect us much.
But there has been one big worry: My wife and I would like to start a family, but there’s no way to jointly adopt a child here, and if one of us conceived with donor sperm, the other would have been blocked from becoming a legal second parent of our own son or daughter. Instead, we’d have been forced to rely on a guardianship agreement just to ensure that custody of our child would pass to its other parent in the event of the birth mother’s death. Meanwhile, the second parent would have had no legal standing and no avenue for attaining it.
Now, that’s all in the past. My wife and I can grow our little family without fear. Five justices looked deep into the U.S. Constitution and found that Tennessee can’t bar same-sex couples like us from all the rights and obligations civil marriage bestows on heterosexuals. It’s a great day to be gay, married, and living in a red state!
My joy over the decision is real, as is my relief. And still, somehow I can’t quite help wishing that this process had gone differently. Throughout Tennessee and states like it, I know there will be anger and resentment toward the court and all LGBTQ people. The ruling is to be imposed unwillingly on states in which attitudes are changing — but not quite fast enough to have made it unnecessary for the Supreme Court to step in.
If it had been up to me, it wouldn’t have gone down that way. The arguments that gay men and lesbians deserve to be treated with dignity under the law would have persuaded ordinary people as swiftly, or more, than they persuaded judges, and a wave of legislation allowing for same-sex marriages would have made equality by judicial fiat unnecessary. If I’d had my way, Tennesseans would have seen through the lies spread by the religious right and welcomed gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender folks, and others in the spirit of true Christian fellowship long ago. Instead, many in the Christian right will continue to define their faith primarily by whom it opposes and whom it keeps out, and grow even more bitter and resistant in the face of their loss. And, now that the marriage question has been decided, it may slow the pace of change on equally important, but less flashy and symbolic issues in the LGBTQ community.
Still, if the past is any guide to the future, tolerance will only increase throughout the nation now that marriage equality is a fait accompli. … For my part, I’ll continue to be a married gay ambassador to a part of the country that remains unfamiliar and somewhat uncomfortable with queerness, but now I’ll finally be able to do it with all of the stability and safety that a state-sanctioned marriage provides. Truly, that is a thing worth celebrating.
FROM THE RIGHT: Maggie Gallagher, in The National Review
The Supreme Court has just ruled 5–4 that the Constitution guarantees a right to gay marriage. Will this decision be the Brown v. Board of Education of our times, or this generation’s Roe v. Wade?
The difference, of course, is that Brown v. Board definitively established a magnificent new public morality that racism is wrong. The Supreme Court’s decision to strip human life in the womb of all legal protections, by contrast, set in motion a 50-year struggle that has yet to end. Which will it be? A great deal depends on how the men and women who would be the GOP nominee for president respond in the next week.
I say this not because I believe politics is everything: But politics for conservatives has been the means by which we have prevented the Left from redefining our views as outside the mainstream. That is why the Left, recognizing the importance of shutting down any political vehicle for our voices, has focused on getting corporations and donors to pressure conservatives to back off, back down, and, above all, shut up.
(So) here is what I think the man or woman who wants to be president cannot say: any version of “the Court has ruled, it’s time to move on.”
Here is what I want to hear: “Today the Supreme Court ruled against our history and traditions that marriage must change its timeless and time-honored meaning in response to the latest liberal pressures. The Supreme Court is not God, and it is not the final word in our American Constitutional system: The Court, like all human things, sometimes get things wrong. It was wrong about slavery with Dred Scott. It was wrong about racism and segregation with Plessy v. Ferguson. It was wrong about the value of every human life with Roe v. Wade. And today it has gotten marriage wrong.
“For a reason, marriage across time and history has been the union of husband and wife: These are the unions we all depend on to make new life, and to connect our babies with the love of their mom and dad. You can rewrite the law, but you cannot rewrite human nature, or the laws of nature and of nature’s God.
“Today, I pledge that, if I am elected president, the move to redefine as discrimination Christianity and traditional beliefs on marriage — to redefine them as the equivalent of racism — ends. Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose, but this same tolerance and respect must be extended to those who disagree with gay marriage. My first day in office I will issue an executive order preventing government from discriminating on the basis of a person’s commitment to the classic understanding of marriage. And within the first 100 days, we will pass legislation codifying that commitment to prevent government power from being used to silence the debate. The First Amendment Defense Act is a commonsense codification of basic decency and mutual respect. I call on not only the Republicans but Hillary Clinton and every other Democrat to pledge to support this law.
“And if they refuse, you will understand how radical a power grab the Democrats imagine: the power to punish classic, mainstream religious belief and push it out of the public square. The American people believe in mutual respect, in live and let live. I have faith that our cause, so named, will not only survive. It will prevail.”
Let us watch, and wait, and see who speaks with courage and who runs for cover.
FROM THE CENTER: Casey Given at Rare
Today, the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage across the United States in a landmark 5-4 decision. While the 14th Amendment’s promise of equal protection played a large role in the ruling, what’s most remarkable is that one of the prominent supporting arguments the Court made is one that conservatives have used to oppose it.
For decades, opponents have claimed that gay marriage is a threat to family values. Some have gone so far as to oppose gay adoption for the same reason, arguing that “every child deserves a mom and a dad,” as the popular retort goes.
Ironically, the Supreme Court turned this logic on its head today, pointing to the success of gay couples in adopting as proof that they aren’t a threat to family values or the institution of marriage:
“Many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.”
Translation: gay marriage is a conservative institution.
More than anything else, I believe this is why the march towards marriage equality has been so fast. Remember, the first state to legalize marriage, Massachusetts, did so in 2003. To think that only 12 years later same-sex marriage would be legal in all 50 states is remarkable progress. That’s because instead of disrupting the institution of marriage, the LGBT movement sought to preserve and join it.
Just think about the language gay rights groups have used over the past decade: love, family, equality. These are values that straight people fundamentally understand, turning them into allies instead of enemies. Rather than presenting anger as the face of social change (a mistake that so many movements make), gay couples shrewdly showed patience and faith that love will endure.
Far from threatening the institution of marriage, the Supreme Court’s ruling made a case for its preservation. In an era of high rates of divorce, children born out of wedlock, and orphans left to be wards of the state, today’s decision increases the supply of families to meet America’s great demand for love.
As a gay man myself, I can’t wait to spend the day celebrating with my boyfriend and dreaming about the future. Because the future is now limitless.
About the Author