The Ultimate Double Edged Sword (SCOTUS-Pocus – The Obergefell Decision)
We continue our series on the Obergefell Supreme Court decision.
Although I’m going to try to close out this group of SCOTUS-Pocus posts, I know that there is still very much to say about religious liberty, the “gay marriage” morass that the SCOTUS has put our country into, as well as individual liberty and rights.
I have long held, though a Conservative person of deep Judeo-Christian faith, that there must be a compromise somewhere in the divide between the rights of people to exercise their faith, and the rights of people to live the lifestyle of their choice.
Logical Reality
After all, the Declaration of Independence insists that all humans are “created equal”, and that among their unalienable rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (even though godless liberals want to forget the part about being “endowed by their Creator”, but that’s another post for another time). The Constitution of the United States guarantees certain freedoms to its citizens, including speech, religion, press, assembly, bearing of arms, and equal protection under the law.
Now, discounting for a moment that these rights can seem to be fluid because of the ideological whims and/or massive bribes of certain individuals resulting in invalid or ideologically-inspired “new interpretations” of the text of the Constitution, the logical reality of American society, overall, is that everyone is free to do, say, live, or believe as befits their concepts of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, provided such is not considered illegal by the majority of people in our democracy.
And let’s not forget that our country was founded as a democracy.
What Is A Democracy?
I like to listen to old time radio shows, and one of my favorites is “Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar”. Many of these shows that exist on MP3 files today, were copied from original tapes, some courtesy of the (then) Armed Forces Radio Service. During the Cold War (when YTJD aired), the shows that aired over AFRS had what I could call “freedom snippets” where the commercials would be. Some of these snippets dealt with the subject of our country being a democracy, and what that means for Americans and the world.
One of my favorites went like this (paraphrasing): “What does it mean to live in a democracy? It means the people govern themselves. The people determine that the majority of the people set the rules for all of them. They write these concepts into the Constitution, and the Constitution can’t be changed by any one, except by the majority of the people. Democracy ensures man its greatest legacy of freedom: the right of all men, everywhere.”
So, if our country would operate as our Founding Fathers intended, we would be a nation that has diverse ideas, opinions, and beliefs, yet no one supposing to take away the right of others to maintain those ideas, opinions and beliefs, as long as the people agree to follow the concepts of democracy, they are free to act and speak, believe and feel the way they choose about issues of personal autonomy (which includes not only sexual lifestyle choice, but religion).
Let The People Decide
But even the Founding Fathers would have considered that such a divisive issue like gay “marriage” should be decided, not by decree of the government, but by the majority of the people.
In other words, such a society-altering decision as gay “marriage” should be decided by national referendum vote (such as in Ireland), not by the whim of a godless, liberal dictatorship as exists in Washington DC today.
But because of the way the SCOTUS has politicized this issue, we are now in the quagmire of a situation where even if the Congress had the political will to overturn such a decision and instead refer it to a national vote, the liberal left would scream bloody murder about how “unfair” it would be under those circumstances.
Why? Because the radical gay faction and the liberal establishment are truly afraid that they might not have enough popular support to win on a national referendum. And, in the meantime, other alternatives could be established by the states (including Oklahoma’s bill that would to cease issuance of marriage licenses across the board, and instead record marriage contracts).
The Alternative
And that’s exactly my point. It is possible to have a few potential alternatives that would do several things, 1) ensure state compliance with the spirit of the SCOTUS “gay marriage” decision, 2) give both straight and gay couples the “equality” of spousal rights, benefits, and responsibilities under state and federal law, and 3) satisfy the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of marriage as between one man and one woman.
More on that, coming up next time.
Next: The Compromise
