A pro-family activist predicts the Obergefell decision that imposed homosexual marriage on the United States will eventually receive the same legal and moral scrutiny as Roe v. Wade.
June 26 marks the fourth anniversary of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, a 5-4 ruling that found same-sex couples are guaranteed the legal right to marry by the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling was predictably hailed as a historic moment for homosexuals and lesbians, who had successfully sued in numerous courts to roll back state-level efforts to defend normal, man-woman marriage.
Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, tells OneNewsNow that Obergefell deserves “notorious” recognition like Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion.
“Pro-lifers come from all across the country to march on D.C. in January to mark Roe v. Wade,” LaBarbera says, “and we’re hoping that we build a coalition against this evil gay marriage ruling from 2015 in just the same way.”
Pro-life activists have criticized Roe for finding a constitutional right to abortion, when the historic document is silent on the issue, and the minority on the court found a similar problem with the Obergefell ruling,too.
The majority of justices failed to provide “even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position,” Chief Justice John Roberts (pictured below) wrote in his dissent.
Roberts wrote elsewhere that the Supreme Court is “not a legislature,” which seemed to be a direct shot at Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing vote who wrote the majority opinion for the five justices.
During oral arguments, Kennedy had raised eyebrows in the courtroom by pointing out that man-woman marriage dates back “for millennia” and the court was being asked to redefine that history.
But his pivotal vote tilted the opinion in the opposite direction. Kennedy’s majority opinion begins with him describing the “transcendent importance of marriage” and how it aids the “universal fear” of being lonely and all alone.
“Their hope,” he wrote of the homosexual plaintiffs, “is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.”
“Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us,” Roberts wrote in his dissent. “Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.”
Reacting to the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the majority of justices seemed to reassure the public in the closing sentences that “rights of conscience” will be protected despite the landmark ruling.
“We will soon see whether this proves to be true,” Alito predicted, which is an interesting observation since the court ruled narrowly for Colorado baker Jack Phillips three years later in what was expected to be a landmark ruling on religious freedom.
The high court announced this month it was not taking up the case of Oregon florist Barronelle Stutzman and sent it back to a lower court.
“I assume,” Alito wrote four years ago, “that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”
LaBarbera tells OneNewsNow a protest is planned for tomorrow in the front of the U.S. Supreme Court building, but he is not naïve about the size of the crowd nor its impact.
“There are not a lot of people who are rising up as they should,” he says. “So it’s going to take a long time — but what we want to do is hold up God’s standard of what marriage really is. It’s one-man, one-woman.”