Saturday, December 8, 2012

If You Really Understood What God Meant!

"Gay Marriage" is the topic of the day.  Please, people, it's not just gay marriage, it's marriage equality.

The internet is littered with people re-energizd to debate the topic, including this writer.

But there is something that many of them rely on:  The Bible.

I've read many posts that try to defend marriage equality by pointing out that "traditional marriage" was not so traditional in scripture.  It's true.  Polygamy was OK. Slaves sleeping with masters. The list goes on.

One of the Christian faithful responding that the person who posted a graphic of the various forms of marriage and relationship in the Bible said  they were just people working out the kinks until we got it right.  "If you really understood what God meant..." she wrote.  Of course I could argue against that easily.  It's always seemed to me that the ultimate heresy is to claim to know the mind of God.

But, folks, all of this is meaningless.

Certainly our faith helps to inform us is broad questions of justice and injustice.  But the 9 people below are called upon to interpret the Constitution of the United States without regard to the dogma of their particular faith.

Suppose that in Loving v Virginia (1967) the majority of justices used the tenants of the Mormon faith held until 1978 that black people could not be full members of the LDS church?  They certainly would not have acted to allow inter-racial marriage and Justice Thomas would be "living in sin."  (Though one could argue that he indeed is, but for very different reasons.  Chiefly hypocrisy.)

Kyle and I have been discussing who might vote how.  We both agree that Thomas will most surely not support marriage equality, at least as it applies to gay ad lesbian Americans.  We also expect that Alito will not, though he said in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas  that overturning Sodomy laws would open the door for "gay marriage."  Justice Roberts on the other hand is not a slam dunk.  He is conservative, but often in the true libertarian sense and his legacy as Chief Justice just might make him move in the direction of real justice.

Speculation is academic.  But we can hope and pray that this Supreme Court will do the right thing.  In the light of recent elections and public opinion shifts we are very, very optimistic.

1 comment:

  1. I hope that the Justices will be able to keep in the forefront that this is a question of whether the feds can deny a right given by a state. It applies to not only "gay marriage" but voting rights for felons who have served their sentence, marijuana laws and several others. I hope the attorneys arguing the case are able to make the connection. DOMA says "no matter what MA, NY or WA or any other state decide, we will deny the rights on a federal level."

    And this is not about the feds making the states DO anything, like Brown v Board, but instead, it is about denying states the ability to PERMIT.