DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. In determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, “‘[d]iscriminations of an unusual character’” especially require careful consideration.
DOMA cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States. (Bold MINE. Various source location removed).
Quite an explosive opinion, wouldn't you say? The Defense of Marriage Act "violates basic due process and equal protection principles," intends "harm" and "disparate treatment," is "motived by an improper animus or purpose" to "discriminate" by "having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class" and to "impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages." To Justice Kennedy I would candidly ask: Upon what basis do you define marriage as between two loving adults?
For this is now the issue. My own sense tells me that while I am intellectually outmatched by many on this issue, I can yet restate a common theme that this slippery slope of an opinion has now created. To what do I imply? Replace "same-sex couples" with "poly-amorous (polygamous) couples" in Kennedy's opinion and you'll see my inference manifestly. Justice Kennedy's unspoken presupposition throughout is that marriage can be defined by whatever whim American citizens believe at the time. Without reserve he believes marriage is an evolving definition, and will someday include same-sex couples on a broad scale.
How naive of us if we believe for one moment this revolution will end once any 2 adults are considered a married couple. After all, why limit marriage to 2? I fear the sort of reply from 5 of the Supreme Court Justices to this question.
The wise and quick-witted of our day wrongly accuse Christians of opposing same-sex marriage only because of the slippery-slope it then creates. While this is one element of the controversy, we believe that only God has the authority to define what marriage is. Christians, as the slaves of Christ, must wholly reject any understanding of marriage other than between one man and one woman, as the Lord taught in Matthew 19.
Amidst the plasma grenades of accusation shot by the majority opinion, I sometimes wonder what it must be like to aid sinners in their suppression of God's Law. They accuse the opposition to same-sex marriage as desiring to do harm to an entire class of fellow-citizens, yet in reality they are causing harm by encouraging a culture of death. Sin may bring happiness in the short-term, but sin by its nature is deceitful and the only thing it can produce is death. If we love our neighbors, we will tell them the truth about God's Law, His just requirements, the wrath that abides upon sinners, and the only way of salvation by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.
Thanks for reading,
Rusty
No comments:
Post a Comment