Some Ominous Wording in the Gay Marriage Supreme Court Decision

The editors of The Federalist, wishing to see signs that Christians will not be persecuted in the future for still opposing gay marriage, point to some language in the decision that they believe indicates a willingness to protect continued opposition to gay marriage. I think they (the editors) are very wrong. The relevant comments in the Court's opinion are:

“Finally, 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. 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, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”

 The Federalist editorial states:

As I read the majority opinion, it seemed that Justice Kennedy veered away from his earlier practice of describing opposition to gay marriage as some kind of pure product of irrationality and hatred. Though it didn’t change the result, I think this opinion accorded more respect to those who wish to preserve the traditional (and extraordinarily predominant) male-female view of marriage.

Kennedy may have veered away from describing opposition as pure irrationality and hatred simply to avoid crippling the Court's reputation, but his comments are pure sop. Reading his comments carefully, you will notice that there is nothing in there that suggests that Christians will be protected in any practice or act that opposes gay marriage. Rather, it very specifically indicates that opponents will only be allowed to "advocate" and "teach the principles." In other words, an opponent's right to express an opinion as part of their right to free speech will not be restricted, but there is nothing about allowing that to extend any further than mere speech.

I would again remind my readers of the Court's decision in  Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890), upholding laws criminalizing polygamy, and holding that there was no exception for religious practices. (I've discussed the Davis holding before). The key point from the case was this:

 The term ‘religion’ has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. It is often confounded with the cultus or form of worship of a particular sect, but is distinguishable from the latter. The first amendment to the constitution, in declaring that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or forbidding the free exercise thereof, was intended to allow every one under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious to the equal rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect. The oppressive measures adopted, and the cruelties and punishments inflicted, by the governments of Europe for many ages, to compel parties to conform, in their religious beliefs and modes of worship, to the views of the most numerous sect, and the folly of attempting in that way to control the mental operations of persons, and enforce an outward conformity to a prescribed standard, led to the adoption of the amendment in question. It was never intended or supposed that the amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislantion [sic].

 In other words, the free exercise of religion only means that a person is free to believe in his mind what he will, but is otherwise subject to criminal law. To take an extreme view, you could be free to believe that you should be able to partake of a sacrament of bread and wine to honor Christ, but the government, in theory, could forbid you from the physical act of consuming such sacrament.

So, that Kennedy's opinion allows Christians to advocate against gay marriage or teach that it is morally wrong is small solace when our livelihoods and property are at risk from a civil rights complaint or law suit should we actually attempt to act on our opposition to gay marriage.

This case is also yet another example that Federalism is dead. Although the courts pay lip service to the concept that we live in a federal system where the powers and authority of the Federal government is limited, it is a sham and lie. There are now no real restrictions on what the Federal government (whether it be the bureaucracy, Congress, or the courts) can legislate or regulate.

The implications are broader than just gay marriage. Jonah Goldberg recently wrote about the general absurdness of the extreme positions being advanced by the left and where he sees it taking the nation as a whole. He writes:

When I was growing up (“How’s that going? Seems like you’ve got a ways to go…” — The Couch), it seemed like lots of people talked about post-modernism, critical-race theory and all that junk. Today, it seems like no one talks about it, but everyone lives it — or is being forced to live with it.

I’ll always remember that line from Wendy Doniger when McCain picked Sarah Palin for veep: “Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.”

Whatever criticisms you might have for Palin, there was a time when the one thing everyone could agree on is that she’s, you know, a woman. But now we live in an age where we must say Bruce Jenner is a woman, but only Right-wing cranks like me bother to complain that a professor at the University of Chicago could write that Sarah Palin isn’t one.

* * *

My real fear isn’t that the left will win. I still have some faith that the American people, including large portions of the Democratic base, don’t actually buy all of this nonsense, or at the very least it’s reasonable to assume they won’t continue to buy it for long. Why? Because it’s exhausting. ...

No my real fear is that the center will not hold. I’ve discussed this a bit when it comes to the debate over Islam. I don’t like the practice of insulting Muslims — or anybody — just to prove a point. But what I like even less is the suggestion that Muslim fanatics have the assassin’s veto over what we can say or do. So I am forced to choose sides, and when forced, I will stand with the insulters over the beheaders. But that is not an ideal scenario. That is the Leninist thinking of “the worse, the better.”

So what I fear is something similar in our own society; that the left gets what it’s been asking for: Total Identity Politics Armageddon. Everyone to your tribe, literal or figurative.

Spending as much time as I do on the internet, it’s easy to think this world has already arrived. It’s basically how political twitter operates. But what I fear is that it spills over into real life, like when characters from The Matrix walk among us.

The Left’s identity-politics game is a bit like the welfare states of Europe, which exist solely by living off borrowed capital and unrequited generosity. Europeans can only have their lavish entitlements because they benefit from our military might and our technological innovation. Left to their own devices, they’d have to live quite differently.

Similarly, identity politics is fueled by generous subsidies from higher education, foundations, and other institutions designed to transfer resources to the Griping Industry. But if you spend enough time teaching people to think that way, guess what? They’ll think that way.

 Looking more broadly, the Court's decision is yet another propaganda victory for Muslim terrorists. They can point to it and proclaim that it is just more evidence of how wicked the West has become and that it must be destroyed. For instance, following the Tunisian massacre, ISIS claimed the massacre was an "attack upon the nests of fornication, vice and disbelief in God."