Whether you like it, or not—this planet, the United States and its inhabitants are changing. Climate change is wreaking havoc around the world, the United States Framers’ old world values will be seen as bigotry, and the people are learning how to tolerate and (dare I say) embrace diversity. I recently read portions of the Supreme Court of the United States’ (SCOTUS) Syllabus, Opinion of the Court (written by Justice Anthony Kennedy), and the dissenting views of Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito related to the ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. The reading was rather heavy with interesting information.
I learned that Justice Kennedy is an articulate writer and as the swing vote in the ruling, demonstrated unequivocal flow in writing the Opinion of the Court. I also learned a new word: anti-miscegenation. Though this term does not directly relate to same-sex marriage, it defines a concept that we all know too well—prejudice. Until 1967, it was illegal (in the state of Virginia) for interracial couples to engage in sexual acts, much less marry. Fast forward to today, four Justices and the American people in thirteen states still classify homosexuality as a conscious choice (versus a biological predisposition) and therefore continue to demonstrate prejudice towards the homosexual community in refusing to recognize that bans on same-sex marriage are no less ignorant than anti-miscegenation.
An interesting point was presented by the dissenting Justices—every American is entitled to life, liberty and property without governmental action unless the people of the State rule otherwise. So the question remains, should a resident in Texas be forced to accept that their heterosexual marriage has the same rights as a homosexual marriage? Should a priest in North, or South Dakota be forced to conduct a same-sex marriage ceremony despite their beliefs about marriage between a man and a woman?
Given the above SCOTUS ruling, the answer is “yes” (though I am still not clear how/if that will be enforced). On a human level, the answer is “yes”. If two consenting, legal adults wish to marry—there should be no governmental, or personal interference. However, the question remains: what of the church who wishes to maintain the union of man and woman? To that I say, should your life, liberty, and/or property be threatened by a same-sex couple who wishes to marry in your church, or community—call the police, but know that there is no evidence to support your claim that loss, or violation of life, liberty, and/or property is the direct result of same-sex marriages. Kennedy writes (in the Opinion of the Court): “Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.” Your/Our children will appreciate your open-mindedness, particularly as they grapple with their own identity.