The Supreme Court took action by a bare 5 to 4 majority on Friday to redefine marriage and by doing so require all 50 states to allow same-sex marriage.
My personal view on the matter is irrelevant other than until [June 26] I (and you) had a vote to be counted. This judicial fiat has now swept away even that voice and truly left all of our views irrelevant. It is this, much more than the decision that is most alarming.
These five judges, all Harvard or Yale grads and all unelected by the citizenry, did more than strike down states laws’ that were legally legislated (some by direct votes by the citizens of each state), they created from their thin hair a new liberty and as such a new right.
They did this by applying pretzel logic rarely witnessed and in no way as a valid interpretation of the Constitution (the sole charter of the body).
They wrote of dignity and referenced case study that in no way spoke to what is “marriage.” They decided that the squeaky wheel and slow process of democracy (which by all trends would have led nearly all states to enact laws supporting same-sex marriage eventually) was not needed and that enough debate has occurred.
This judicial activism and subversion of the democratic process should be even more concerning to all than the unending overreach of the executive branch, but together these two of three “co-equal” branches continue to erode the voice of every one of us in our governing, primarily in the name of progressivism.
Far from settling this matter, like Roe v. Wade, this action will only ensure never ending lawsuits, the nature of many that we cannot even predict today.
I urge all reading this, especially our youth, to go to www.supremecourt.gov and download and read the decision of Obergefell v. Hodges. You may be moved by the poetic reasoning recorded by the majority. But read also the dissenting judges’ views for a better understanding of the depth of errors by the majority.
Not one of the minority state their position on the validity of the desires of same-sex partners. Rather, their arguments universally have to do with the role of the Court, the logic stretch of the majority, and the overreach just visited upon us.
Alan Felts
Peachtree City, Ga.
