Handing another blow to the conservative cause, a divided Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 for posterity to permit same-sex marriage. What’s lost in the endless battle of dissenting opinions is that the case was never about religious, historical or traditional definitions of marriage but rather whether the Fourteenth Amendment applied to gay and lesbian taxpayers. No one on either side liked the surgical coldness of Constitutional law that simply evaluated sound legal precedent against new test cases involving same-sex marriage. Massachusetts’ High Court was ahead of the curve when it approved same-sex marriage May 17, 2004, arguing the Fourteenth Amendment but also, more importantly, the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling, banning “separate but equal” treatment of black citizens in the nation’s school systems. Brown opened the door to integrating public schools.
How Brown became so important in Massachusetts was the extension of established civil rights laws to the gay rights movement. Once “gay rights” became a “civil right” under established constitutional precedents, it was just a matter of time before the federal courts would rule the same way. Conservative opponents to same-sex never understood that the federal courts weren’t litigating biblical issues or historical precedents only whether or not gay citizens were discriminated against. When emotion was removed from the legal arguments and justices were forced to look only at the legal precedents, they were forced to approve same-sex marriage. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas errantly fixated on “liberty” or “dignity” issues, insisting they were not part of the U.S. Constitution. “Liberty” and “dignity” had nothing to do with the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and due process.
Thomas knew that “liberty” and “dignity” had nothing to do with the Constitutional grounds on which to uphold same-sex marriage. Showing sour grapes in his dissenting opinion, Thomas insisted there’s no guarantee of “liberty” or “dignity” in the Constitution. “It’s decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society,” concluded Thomas, making zero sense. Applying the Fourteenth Amendment or Brown v. Board of Education establishes, once-and-for-all, that gay rights are now civil rights. Swing voting conservative Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy gave the fifth vote to cement today’s High Court ruling. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage,” wrote Kennedy, explaining the logic behind his vote. “Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.”
Thomas fixated on Kennedy’s words of equal dignity under the law. “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law,” said Kennedy. “The Constitution grants them that right,” prompting Thomas’s objections. Kennedy really meant “equal protection” under the law, not equal dignity. Agreeing with the dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts walked a fine line respecting the Court’s decision, while, at the same time, expressing his dissent. “Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept,” wrote Roberts, knowing the decision would rub religious conservatives the wrong way. However the Supreme Court ruled, religious conservatives—of whatever denomination—can exclude marrying gay and lesbian couples invoking the Separation Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Same-sex marriage only applies to civil ceremonies affording same-sex marriage the same access to marriage licenses and ceremonies as heterosexual couples. “Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits,” wrote Roberts. “But do no celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” refusing to accept that swing-voting Kennedy and the four liberal associate justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, applied only their personal biases. Whether Roberts or any other conservative justice admits it or not—the High Court ruled only on established Constitutional law related to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses, not just personal preferences or individual biases.
All federal, state and municipal courts must now comply with the June 26 Supreme Court ruling approving same-sex marriage. Small municipal or state courts must adjust legal rulings discriminating against same-sex marriage, or, for that matter, doing business with same sex couples, to comply with new federal law. Churches and private businesses go at the their own risk discriminating against gays and lesbians, especially when it comes to marriage-related activities. National opinion polls show that 60% of U.S. respondents now back same-sex marriage. For the dissenters, including 2016 GOP candidates, they must pick a different issue on which to run for president. When the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that all Obamacare subsidies must go forward, the GOP lost another campaign issue. Continuing to beat a dead horse on either issue only hurts the GOP chances in 2016.
