Al Mohler–A Sad Milestone for Marriage and Morality

A giant milestone in the moral revolution passed today when the U.S. Supreme Court turned down every single appeal from several states on the issue of same-sex marriage. This decision not to take at least one case under consideration stunned both sides in the same-sex marriage battle. Last weekend’s edition of USA Today featured a front-page story that declared the virtual certainty that the Court would take at least one of the cases and declared same-sex marriage to be “a cause whose time has come.”

Well, same-sex marriage may well be an issue whose time has come in the culture, due to the massive moral shift that has taken place over the last few decades, but the nation’s highest court has decided that now is not the time for it to take up such a case. Faced with the opportunity either to stop same-sex marriage in its tracks or to hand down a sweeping decision tantamount to a new Roe v. Wade, the Court took a pass.

Some will argue that the Court’s decision was a strategic choice intended to preserve its dignity and stature. Already, many defenders of natural marriage are doing their best to argue that the Court’s refusal to take a case is better for the cause of marriage than a sweeping decision in favor of same-sex marriage. The proponents of same-sex marriage had hoped for just such a decision, and attorneys were jockeying for position, wanting to be the lead counsel for the “gay marriage Roe decision.” But make no mistake, the proponents of same-sex marriage won this round, and they won big. They did not get the sweeping coast to coast ruling they wanted, but what they got was an even faster track to the same result.

Read it all.


Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, * International News & Commentary, --Civil Unions & Partnerships, America/U.S.A., Law & Legal Issues, Marriage & Family, Politics in General, Religion & Culture, Sexuality

9 comments on “Al Mohler–A Sad Milestone for Marriage and Morality

  1. Br. Michael says:

    What is left now is Christian persecution and criminalization of conscience.

  2. jamesw says:

    Mohler is right on the money here, and I would further suggest that this result is exactly what Kennedy was expecting when he wrote the DOMA decision last year. Ginsberg, Kennedy and others hope that today’s news will pass largely under the radar, so that most Americans won’t really notice what has just happened, and gay marriage will become mandated in all 50 states within a matter of months.

    This sort of chicanery and political machination should eliminate any shreds of credibility that the court system has. This is cynical manipulation at its very worst.

  3. Katherine says:

    I remember Scalia’s dissent in the Lawrence case, and he was exactly right. The courts have presumed to overrule the will of the people and human nature.

  4. ClassicalChristian says:

    I just can’t fathom the cowardice of the justices, who have clearly set out to rule in this matter without actually having to rule and take responsibility for their actions. At the very least, they should come out and be honest about their decisions and reasoning, not that it will convince many. Instead, they have said “not gonna touch that with a ten foot pole” and abdicated their own authority, meanwhile permitting the very thing they desire…They didn’t even let the opposing side give arguments for the defense of traditional, natural marriage! Truly despicable!

    Then again, I suppose it’s all that the left side of the bench could do, politically speaking–Ginsberg and Kagan have performed same sex “marriages” and thus would have to recuse themselves from any decision on cases touching the issue. And with those two votes removed, that would leave the bench tilting far more to the right, therefore jeopardizing the pro-gay objectives of the rest. Hence by voting at the beginning to not pick up any of the cases, without deciding on the merits of the cases, the left side has managed to get around rules of recusal yet still achieve their ends. Clever yet sinister, and as I said above cowardly.

    Yet, as Mohler notes, this could be predicted when Kennedy wrote the Lawrence v Texas decision. He planted his flag squarely for revisionist sexuality and radical individualism back in 2003. The legalization was a forgone conclusion then, given the pseudo-legal justification put forward in Kennedy’s majority opinion. Still, I don’t suppose any could have predicted it would end this way, a victory without a fight.

  5. Pb says:

    I do not like the result. But other than equal protection, I do not see a constitutional issue. Marriage has traditionally been left to the states to legislate. DOMA was an exception to this rule and maybe was struck down because of it this. This decision avoids making a protected class out of homosexuals which would have far reaching consequences. It could have been worse.

  6. ClassicalChristian says:

    #5–You are correct in saying that marriage has traditionally been left to the states. However, the cases at issue were appellate decisions against the states which had prohibited same sex “marriages.” Had the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiori and subsequently overturned the appellate courts’ decisions, that would have reaffirmed the states’ power to recognize marriages. Instead, by refusing to hear the cases, the SC has left the appellate decisions to stand, thus arrogating to the federal government the authority to determine the status of marriages, not only the states in which the suits were originally brought, but also the other states within the same district, thus effectively deciding against states’ prerogative in 30 states, with the message sent to the others that the federal court has decided decisively that states cannot prohibit same sex “marriage.” Had the SC taken up the cases and overturned the appellate court, that would have affirmed the states’ prerogative. But they did not; rather they expanded the authority of the federal government…

  7. BlueOntario says:

    Pb, the only thing avoided was taking the time to try this issue before the Supreme Court. This de facto decision does have far reaching consequences and will probably be construed into other areas such as protected classes.

    I will add, that for many citizens, it will become another nail in the coffin of respect for their government. I can hardly think that the justices are unaware of this, but perhaps they deceive themselves.

  8. Pb says:

    I agree with 6 and 7 but am afraid of the result if they had taken the case. I think they are still aware of their miscalculation in Roe v Wade.

  9. Pb says:

    Now that marriage is a secular institution and subject to numerous variations, this may be the time to require a civil marriage for all couples (or groups) and let the churches deal with their marriages as they wish. This may draw a line where now there is a blur.