I recently read the 2015 supreme court decision on same sex marriage.
When I set out to read this document, I read with an open mind
trying to understand the arguments from both sides of the same sex marriage law. The arguments of the majority rule were described as emotional and fairness for
all. The majority believed in the sanctity of marriage. In their view,
marriage was not on trial. In their view, families and children were not
at risk. The same entitlement government benefits need to be available
for all people whom love each other regardless of their sexual preference.
Both
sides agreed that Marriage was not on trial but the dissenters argued regarding
the definition of marriage and that the laws concerning this subject need to be
given to the voice of the people and the states, not the judges of the
land.
I listened to a video: https://youtu.be/xVTHhQhFb8M
Cathy Ruse, Esq. Senior Counsel, family
research council Oct 28, 2015 Salt lake city, utah.
I wish to summarize Cathy's comments regarding this very sensitive subject.
In speaking of same-sex marriage, Cathy
said, "Americans did not ask for this change. When
historians write about the politics of marriage in the 1st decade of the 21st
American century.. what will they write?
Will they write that in the year 2000
the people of Nebraska voted overwhelming to codify man/woman marriage in their
state law? Will they write that in the year 2004 the people of Arkansas,
Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Utah, Oklahoma, Ohio and Louisiana
codified man/woman marriage in their state laws. Will historians write
that in 2005 the people of Texas, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee and Wisconsin overwhelmingly codified man/woman
marriage in their state laws? Will they write that in 2008 Florida,
Arizona and California made man/woman marriage the law? Will they write
that in 2009 the people of Maine and 2012 North Carolina codified man/woman
marriage into their state law?
These laws were not passed by a
legislature. These were passed by people stepping into a voting booth and
casting their personal vote for man/woman marriage.
Will historians write that by 2012, 50
million Americans had stepped into voting booths and said no to a change in the
definition of marriage and did all they could as citizens to legally preserve
man/woman marriage as the law of their land?
Historians won’t write this! Will
historians write that in 2013 a federal judge struck down the law that the
people of Utah had passed? Will they write that in 2014, another judge
struck down the law that the people of Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas and Michigan
had passed? Will they write that a handful of federal judges nullified the laws
that the people had put into place in Ohio, Arkansas, Idaho, and another
handful struck down the laws that had been put in place in Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado and Florida?
Certainly historians will write that in
the spring of 2015, five lawyers on the highest court in this land struck down
the rest of the laws that the rest of the people had put into place. The
historians won’t write it that way though.
Instead historians will speak of
a shift in American attitudes. They will use phrases like tidal wave and sea
change. They will ruminate on how rapidly Americans came to embrace this
new paradigm about marriage.
This will be an illusion. It will
be a lie. All that can really be said is that a handful of liberal judges
embraced it and forced it on the rest of us.
The other side want those of us who
believe in man/woman marriage to think that all of America is against us and
the world is against us. Certainly it feels that way. But that is
an illusion.
Advocates of same sex marriage don’t
want us to count the number of nations in the world that have changed their
laws to embrace same-sex marriage. It is only 20 nations out
of 220 UN nations world wide.
Advocates of same sex marriage don’t
want us to count how many nations have forced same sex marriage on their people
by court order. There are only two nations in all the world that have forced
same sex marriage upon their people, Brazil and now the United States of
America!
Advocates of same sex marriage don't
want us to notice that eastern Europeans are changing their constitution to
protect the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
One
after another after another of these countries embrace the definition of
marriage as a man and a woman.
Advocates of same sex marriage don't
want us to remember the 1.5 million Spaniards that crowded the streets of
Madrid protesting a change in the definition of marriage. It was
amazing but they want you to forget that.
Advocates of same sex marriage want you
to forget the millions of Frenchmen who stormed the streets of Paris protesting
a change in the definition of marriage and trying to preserve man/woman
marriage as the law of their country.
We must remember it all and we must
tell it all. We have got to repeat this story. You can’t do
anything in the future unless you understand the past and we have to understand
what just happened. WE have to understand the truth of it. (Not the
spin ...because historians will lie.)
Americans tried to preserve
man/woman marriage and a handful of liberal judges stopped us. We must
tell this story.
Our enemy in this fight is not our
neighbor... Not even the 1.6% of our neighbors who identify themselves as
gay. Our enemy are those who would be our masters.
The judge who
jails a clerk for failing to give her signature.
The magistrate who takes
the house of a baker for want of a cake.
These words are pretty
straight-forward. What I want to emphasize is that we are the
majority voice in the land whom are made to feel like the minority.
Have we lost the battle? Do we need to make our voice heard?
Quoting: OBERGEFELL v. HODGES
ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
Our Constitution does not enact any one theory
of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include
same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the
Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and
recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I
begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of
laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters
of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow
citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today.
Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as
a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for
many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that
much more difficult to accept.
If you are among the many Americans—of
whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means
celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal.
Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner.
Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the
Constitution. It had nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent.
OBERGEFELL v. HODGES ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
In conclusion, I would
like to quote an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Disciples of the Lord are defenders of
marriage. We cannot yield. History is not our judge. A secular society is not
our judge. God is our judge! For each of us, Judgment Day will be held in God’s
own way and time.7
RUSSELL M. NELSONof the Quorum of the Twelve ApostlesAug. 14, 2014 • Commencement
No comments:
Post a Comment