The Supreme Court recently recognized gay “marriage” as constitutional in the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. The majority leader was Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican, who stated this about marriage.
“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.”
So, this typical emotionally based arguments in favor of gay “marriage”. It wasn’t until 1803 that the Supreme Court gained the right to undo or make laws under the guise of judicial review with the Marbury v Madison case. Constitutionally, the Supreme Court did not have the right to undo or make a law; its power was limited to “Cases, in Law and Equity, . . . the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made . . . to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” (Article 3, Section 2). It started when Adams wanted to silence critics. So, now the Supreme Court’s “judicial review” power is now an extension of the president’s agenda which overrules the laws of states at will. The Constitution says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (Amendment 10). The Constitution does not touch marriage, so that is a state issue by constitutional law. The Supreme Court cannot force states to accept it. Yet it has bypassed constitutional law granted the states the right to make decisions of such a topic as marriage since the Constitution does not mention it. Not only that, but worse this mocks the Sacrament.
It’s a bit expected that actors and voice actors would support such a ruling. So, are people going to call for and rejoice at the sight of adults getting the right to marry minors, animals or inanimate objects? Why does the state have to legally recognize gay “marriage” to begin with? If the gays don’t care what others say, then there is no reason to make other people accept their lifestyle because they can live it anyway. Sorry, I like the MLP cast, but I can’t agree on this one. It’s too overtly against my moral convictions as an artificial and unnatural union does not do justice to the Sacrament of Matrimony which God instituted and no human may tamper with (rf. Matthew 19:4-6).
Chief Justice John Roberts criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling by saying this.
“But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.”
We live in days where also Republicans are openly supporting gay “marriage”. It’s only going to get more difficult criticizing it because now schools will push gay “marriage” on children increasingly and penalize those who dissent. It has already happened a number of times. Furthermore, businesses will increasingly be able to discriminate in whom they hire based on their views about gay “marriage” while businesses are more likely to be penalized for turning down catering to gay weddings.