{"id":162,"date":"2015-07-15T00:12:18","date_gmt":"2015-07-15T00:12:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/macyplace.com\/tom\/blog\/?p=162"},"modified":"2015-07-15T00:12:18","modified_gmt":"2015-07-15T00:12:18","slug":"same-sex-marriage-scotus-dissenting-opinions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/tom.macyplace.com\/Blog\/index.php\/2015\/07\/15\/same-sex-marriage-scotus-dissenting-opinions\/","title":{"rendered":"Same-Sex Marriage – SCOTUS Dissenting Opinions"},"content":{"rendered":"

Over the next few weeks, let\u2019s look at the dissenting opinions from the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling<\/span><\/a> on same-sex marriage. (If you go to the ruling page, note that the majority opinion and each dissenting opinion start at page number 1.) \u00a0Rather than the usual statement\u2014\u201cI respectfully dissent\u201d\u2014these opinions broke from the norm<\/span><\/a> by saying \u201cI dissent\u201d while others left the phrase out altogether. Additionally, the dissenting opinions use somewhat disrespectful language. This accentuates the divisive nature of the ruling. What does that mean for people believing that marriage is between one man and one woman?<\/p>\n

The first thing to note is that none of the dissenting opinions was based on God\u2019s one man \/ one woman design. While Roberts and Alito reference religious tradition for marriage, ALL of the dissenters use the Constitution to frame their arguments which, of course, is what they are supposed to do. In the strongest terms, they show how the decision diminishes the role of the people and increases the power of the Court at the expense of the Constitution. But, in their opinions is a \u201cheads up\u201d to organizations supporting traditional marriage.<\/p>\n

To start this series, here are three quotes from Justice Roberts\u2019 dissenting opinion.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \u201cAlthough they [the majority] discuss some of the ancillary legal benefits that accompany marriage, such as hospital visitation rights and recognition of spousal status on official documents, petitioners\u2019 lawsuits target the laws defining marriage generally rather than those allocating benefits specifically.\u201d [p 24]<\/li>\n
  2. \u201cRespect 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\u2019s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to \u2018advocate\u2019 and \u2018teach\u2019 their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to \u2018exercise\u2019 religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.\u201d [p 27-28]<\/li>\n
  3. \u201c\u2026the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36\u201338.\u201d [p 28]<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

     <\/p>\n

    What implication does this hold for Christians (and those of other beliefs who hold to the traditional view of marriage)?<\/p>\n