Two SCOTUS rulings made today: The fight wasn’t over for either one
Now that the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in a 5-4 decision, what would the impact mean for religious institutions and those that follow what the Bible said? How would states that previously banned same sex marriage adjust? Would private schools, churches and businesses have been allowed to use the ‘religious objection’ rule without being cited for discrimination?
In spite of this landmark ruling, the fight wasn’t over yet. All these places were getting the time to adjust. Yes, there might have been rulings made in the future as to who was to accept or reject what. As a nation, it was a ‘wait and watch’ situation as in the landmark decision that struck down opposition to ObamaCare.
Two things bothered me about this discussion:
1. Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, sided with the majority. A few months ago, he was squeamish about rewriting ancient Biblical teachings which he followed himself, because he was not around when they were written.
2. Justice Scalia seemed to give up on the whole situation and wrote one of the dissenting opinions.
There was agreement on this statement made in his dissenting opinion on this case:
The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”
At least the Bible wasn’t that way:
22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men. (NIV)
The role of the Supreme Court, according to the 700 Club today, was shifting from interpretation of law to rewriting them to fit the growing trend and not sustaining the added responsibility of maintaining checks and balances on the other two branches of government.
The court also struck down opposition to ObamaCare, now called SCOTUSCare today. If they were smart, according to the above mentioned program, they would send it back to committee and have them rewrite the law to clarify what they meant rather than trying to rewrite the law themselves on both. No wonder one of the justices got cranky.
Here was some of what he wrote:
“Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of,” he wrote. That is, strictly speaking, true, since this was a new case.
“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”
At least those in danger of losing their coverage under this plan got to keep it.
While this assured President Obama’s legacy, all that really happened was the band-aid effect. It was to have been another year before all the wrinkles were ironed out. This blogger speaks true also, it was too close to an election year to have decided this case. The problems were still there, like the gay marriage ruling, so the fight just got started.
The people who ushered change in might’ve been the victims themselves if they stood in the way.
This “arc of history” narrative is used to legitimize the vigilante justice wielded against the bigoted foes of progress. Because the future will inevitably turn toward “equality,” we are told, millennials who stand in the way have no future. They will be history. The majority of the Republican Party can be excused—they are from an older generation. But when you grow up in a time of progress, the revolution will not be merciful.