To be perfectly frank, at the beginning of a recent marriage class lesson, I was dreading reading a Supreme Court case we were asked to read. I thought it would be boring and full of language that I wouldn’t understand and about a topic I thought wouldn’t really pertain to me, as I am a happily married heterosexual. I soon learned, as I kept turning the pages, that I was more than a little wrong in my thoughts. The issue decided that day (finding a right in all 50 states to same-sex marriage) had not only to do with me, but to every citizen in the United States.
The Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, el al., here in after “Obergefell”, case affects me, my children, my grandchildren and those yet unborn to me, as well as to YOU. Personally, I didn’t find the same sex issue to be the biggest or the most impactful issue that was discussed in this decision. It will cause many changes and there will be angst on both sides who consider what the definition of marriage is or should be, I’m sure. But, the bigger and more fundamental and grave issue came as such a surprise to me! By reading this case, I now realize that I have been going along ignorant of this decision’s gargantuan impact on our society and country and its individual citizens. This is what I get for sticking my head in the sand!
I actually feel violated. I say this because you and I (no matter our proclivities) have been stripped of our democratic right to make an informed decision through the due process of law within our own state. How amazing it is with the stroke of the pen by five Supreme Court Justices, the decision to consider marriage in its historic context, that being between a man and a woman; an issue that had been chosen in 41 states – could be in an instant yanked from these states citizens. The rights of voting on an issue and believing that it stood for something was just flushed away. My concern is that if this can be done once, what is to stop the court from doing this on any issue that they deem they know more about (or hold in more regard than either a minority or a majority of people)?
The dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia made this consideration very clear, no one in any state is safe or can be secure that any law may not arbitrarily change at the whim of those in the majority in the Supreme Court now that this precedent has been set. By the Supreme Court’s majority following their own ideals rather than sticking to the confines of the Constitutional Law by which this land was formed and was fought for to be governed, we are in jeopardy of a faltering democracy. And I quote, “With each decision of ours (meaning the Supreme Court’s) that takes from the People a question properly left to them – with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court – we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.” (Page 9 of Justice Scalia’s dissent in “Obergefell”.)
From the opportunity of reading this case, I have learned that I need to be more conscientious of what goes on around me. I suppose though, one could say that I am in part “aware” because I live daily in my working world with a number of people who have same-sex marriages and families. I have family who have chosen this lifestyle. I co-exist with everyone with no problem. But, I am now prone to think deeper about what has been caused in my life because of this legal decision. It has personally cost me a deficit in my rights. I still hold no malice toward any individual. I am only voicing that it is important to analyze and realize the consequence of every given choice, both mine and that of others. I now understand that as of June 26, 2015, my ability/right to make choices (hence, part of my freedoms) has been diminished.
If you have read this case, I ask you: Was the cost of your own rights to choose on a state level worth the price paid on a national one, disregarding the subject matter?
