By Morgan Lee and Jeremy Weber, Christianity Today.
State bans on same-sex marriage are no longer legal in America, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today.
So the question becomes: How will gay rights and religious rights be balanced?
Below is what the justices said in today’s majority opinion and four dissents, as well as a summary of related survey data.
Essentially, the majority believe the First Amendment gives religious groups and people “proper protection” to “continue to advocate” their beliefs on traditional marriage. But the dissenters are more skeptical, and concerned that “people of faith can take no comfort” in the ruling.
“Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises,” acknowledges Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, “and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.”
He explains that while that “sincere, personal opposition” cannot be “enacted law and public policy” without harming gay couples and violating the Fourteenth Amendment, he favors a continued “open and searching debate” between those who favor and oppose same-sex marriage.
“It must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned,” writes Kennedy in a paragraph that will likely become the focus of scrutiny by church-state experts.
“The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths,” he continues, “and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”
Chief Justice John Roberts is less confident. In his dissent, he argues that today’s decision “creates serious questions about religious liberty.”
“Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution,” he writes. “Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for dissenting religious practice.” But he says the Supreme Court is too much of a “blunt instrument” to do likewise. [Thus the evangelical argument for “if you can’t beat them, amend them.”]
“The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views of marriage,” writes Roberts. “The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”
Roberts looks ahead to the likelihood of future conflicts between gay rights and religious rights, such as the tax status of conservative Christian colleges.
21 Comments. Leave new
Does this open the door for multiple marriage between more that two people?
I am not so much afraid of the Supreme Court decision as I am afraid of what the Supreme Court has become – an accommodating joke of a court that is more politically motivated than on seeking to preserve the truth.
One of the dissenting opinions says it does.
Since the definition of marriage has changed, can the church change the words and vocabulary they use to express the difference between ” gay” marriage and traditional marriage between a man and woman?
That is what I see happening as we adjust to this new reality. Maybe it is time for the church to reinstate the sacramental nature of ” marriage” between a man and women in honor of Jesus words to His disciples in Mark 10: 6-9. Maybe it is time to honor Jesus words even in the damage divorce and adultery does to families by elevating the meaning of Jesus words, the two shall become one.
Marriage is a Covenant ordained by God, not a Sacrament.
To be sure, marriage, as a covenant, is attended by its own sign and seal, viz. sexual intercourse between the husband and his wife, just as the Sacraments (i.e. Baptism & the Lord’s Supper) are the signs and seals of the New Covenant of Redemption in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Same-gender pseudo-sexual unions, regardless of whether or not they are called “marriage” by the state, cannot genuinely partake of this sacrament, inasmuch as the Lord did not design the genitalia of persons of the same gender to mate, thus making genuine copulation impossible for same-gender couples.
Is not this what the megalomaniac administration wants for the USA,a transformational change without Biblical Authority?
Homosexual activists will continue to hound people of faith and the government will not defend them. The Court has made it clear that it, not the Constitution, is the source of civil rights in the U.S. and we know which way they lean.
In the Constitution, as originally written, the authority of the Supreme Court extended to matters of treason, disputes occurring on the high seas, and ruling on differences between States that can not be resolved by the respective State Supreme Courts.
Once again L. Lee demonstrates a misunderstanding of Presbyterianism. The first was a recent comment in which he/she stated that commissioners to Presbytery and GA are meant to be representatives. They are not. Now he or she is saying the marriage is a sacrament. It is not. If people are going to purport to uphold traditional Presbyterian values, it might be nice if they knew what those were.
The nature of marriage could encompass the meaning of being a sacrament in that it is a sign, token and symbol.
sacrament
[sak-ruh-muh nt]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
Ecclesiastical. a visible sign of an inward grace, especially one of the solemn Christian rites considered to have been instituted by Jesus Christ to symbolize or confer grace: the sacraments of the Protestant churches are baptism and the Lord’s Supper; the sacraments of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, matrimony, penance, holy orders, and extreme unction.
2.
(often initial capital letter). Also called Holy Sacrament. the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper.
3.
the consecrated elements of the Eucharist, especially the bread.
4.
something regarded as possessing a sacred character or mysterious significance.
5.
a sign, token, or symbol.
6.
an oath; solemn pledge.
Dear Layman,
We need to all recognize that 4 of the Justices are protective of the Christian Community. We also need to recognize that we have had decades of left of center, anti-Christian law students graduating from our law schools. We have an election in 2016, the President appoints the justices (Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Federal District Court) and the U.S. Senate approves the candidates. Start supporting Presidential candidates that will be protective of our Free Exercise of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Speech, and the Right of Conscience. Also, start supporting U.S. Senators and U.S. Senate candidates that will be protective of our Free Exercise of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Speech, and the Right of Conscience.
L. Lee: In the Presbyterian (and other Reformed Churches) there are two, and only two sacraments: Baptism and Communion. That’s it. Reformed theology is actually pretty clear on that point, and has been since the beginning.
To be clear, I don’t mind that you think that marriage is a sacrament, I simply think you should understand that you are not speaking for historic and traditional Reformed Christianity when you make that assertion. It is, however, good Catholic theology, so make of that what you will.
Maybe you’d be happier in the Catholic Church if those beliefs more closely align with your personal theology.
Tom, ha, ha
I maybe should have used the word SANCTITY of marriage……….
sanctity Meaning, definition in Cambridge English Dictionary
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/sanctity
“- sanctity meaning, definition, what is sanctity: the quality of being very important and deserving respect. ”
Heaven will be inter- denominational….so I am good to go!
To be fair to Lee, he did say ‘could the church’ do this (reaffirm marriage as a sacrament)….I assumed he was talking about the whole of the church, not PCUSA, and just talking about possibilities that the church might use to distinguish marriage between what we feel is real marriage and what is not….interesting idea at that….I might suggest….”Holy matrimony” and “Unholy matrimony”…probably wouldn’t fly, though. 🙂
The cultural process of adopting new mores takes time especially when there is resistance. Going forward, people will be asked “are you in a traditional marriage or a gay marriage” out of habit not out of angst. Regardless of what the court says,
acculturation takes time (though our schools and media are speeding up this process). The church is seeing the two cultures and the shift in these cultures.
Churches who hold strong Biblical authority beliefs will start to
resist these changes in tangible ways like leaving the PCUSA and not allowing gay marriage ceremonies. I suggested above also adopting a new vocabulary to express the respect given to Jesus words about defining marriage between a man and woman only and becoming one. There has always been a theme of separation and sanctification or being set apart for God’s work and purpose. Marriage needs to be elevated in the church
to the covenant before God that it is, instead of minimized in significance.
Our society and families will be improved by this!
The real battle, however, is the hearts of people. Vocabulary alone does not change people from the inside where behavior is controlled.
We have a big job to do……lets keep speaking to our culture.
Linda Lee
L.Lee writes, ” I suggested above also adopting a new vocabulary to express the respect given to Jesus words about defining marriage between a man and woman only and becoming one.”
So you want to redefine marriage?
There is a word for what you are trying to do: deflecting! That is where someone tries to change the topic and intent.
Culture Has redefined the word” marriage”. I want the church to use words that express clearly Jesus definition in Mark 10 of a man leaving his father and mother and cleaving to his wife. Jesus interpretation of Genesis 1,2 is the interpretation I will go with.
The word “marriage” is not clear any more.
I guess that the time has come for us to get down on our knees.
Little kid-like analogy, Tom.
Actually it wasn’t an analogy, nor deflecting. It was quoting L. Lee: “I suggested above also adopting a new vocabulary”
Actually, you made the analogy that he was the one now wanting to “redefine marriage”…but, alas, whatever it was, it was indeed childish.