Today the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) redefined marriage to accommodate mono-gender sexuality. While disappointed in our High Court's understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law across America, I am not saddened or disheartened, but resolved that as Christians we will continue to live for Jesus Christ, and must do so now more than ever in our marriages and our families as we raise the next generation of children for our national strength.
Today's SCOTUS decision marks the fourth major homosexual rights ruling by Justice Anthony Kennedy: Lawrence (2000), Romer(200?), Windsor (2013), and now Obergfell (2015), each time using sweeping language in describing new and never conceived rights in the constitution. (To learn more about these previous opinions download and read http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2462093.) Using equal protection language from the 14th Amendment with a due process analysis to justify historical changes to marriage, the Court has found a new fundamental right which will expand marriage toward a broader spectrum than was ever expected when women gained rights toward equality in modern marriage law. Using the examples of legal movement away from arranged marriage and away from coverture in Old English Common Law the Court justified today's ruling as a continuation of those "deep transformations" in the structure of marriage. This combined with notions of autonomy developed in the abortion rights cases J. Kennedy applied his Casey analysis of personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy to include intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs, moving from the seed of Casey toward an autonomous sexualization of culture and gender. These changes will bring harm to women and children inevitably. (To see how this is already occurring, download and read http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2551304.) In our brief on how this case will do so Prof. John Easton of Chapman Law School and I state:
Throughout the history of civilization, marriage's universally defining feature has been the uniting of man and woman. That timeless conception of marriage has been society's best means of connecting men to the women who bear their children and ensuring that they collectively remain a family. For centuries, that understanding of marriage has served to forestall the ills—especially to women, children, and underprivileged populations—that all too often result when society separates sex, procreation, and childrearing. It has provided stability where there might otherwise be disorder. Where it has flourished, marriage has greatly benefited society, as well as children and adults (both men and women) in married households, particularly those from underprivileged backgrounds.
Now at a time in American culture when father absence is rising to levels devastating to children and their families (download and read http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2462112), the High Court has legitimized that harm to children of growing up deprived of a father, or a mother to protect adult sexual autonomy. As J. Roberts stated in his dissent, today "do not celebrate the constitution. It had nothing to do with it." In fact, religiously affiliated law schools like Regent University have a constitutional and international human right of conscience to continue to require employees and students to adhere to a standard of conduct that reflects their sincerely held belief that God instituted marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Today Christians can rejoice that marriage as God designed it cannot be altered by the Supreme Court. Rather, we must live to strengthen our own marriages and to teach our children as per Deus. 6: 4-9 of the Commandments of the Great I AM.