On the morning of Friday, June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of James Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in Obergefell v. Hodges, and allowed same-sex couples to marry and have their marriage recognized in all 50 states. This was a huge victory for the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) community as thousands rallied in front of the Supreme Court upon hearing the verdict. Some were waving flags displaying the famous pink equal sign amid a red background (representing equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people), some were clutching rainbow flags symbolizing LGBT pride, some were in tears, yet all were full of joy, promise, and relief, hope gleaming from their faces at the final decision reached that warm summer morning. "In an emotional moment, the supporters sang the National Anthem, clapping wildly after singing that the U.S. is 'the land of the free.'" (CNN)
James Obergefell and his partner, John Arthur, both from Cincinnati, Ohio, were married on July 11, 2013 in Maryland since their home state held a ban on same-sex marriage until the time of the case. Arthur was terminally ill, suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) at the time of their matrimony. Upon his death, Obergefell began the legal fight to be recognized as Arthur's surviving spouse on the latter's death certificate, a feat the State Attorney General's office denied in light of defending Ohio's same-sex marriage ban.
The five liberal justices of the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagen, and Anthony Kennedy, voted in favor of the recognition of same-sex marriage nationwide. They were met with brute backlash from the other four conservative justices, Justice Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts.
The majority's reasoning protected same-sex marriage under the 14th Amendment, claiming equal protection of the LGBT community under the law. "The right of same-sex couples to marry is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment's guarantee of the equal protection of the laws," wrote Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion. "It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
Justice Scalia's dissent was the most appalling. He wrote, "The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." He went on to classify this decision as a "threat to American democracy," and questioned the legitimacy of intimacy and spirituality as freedoms.
Alabama Supreme Court Justice Ray Moore also had something to say against the decision. Claiming it was even worse than the Supreme Court's decision to uphold racial segregation in their 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Moore stated, "I believe it's worse because it affects our entire system of morality and family values."
This is the true test of the entire same-sex marriage controversy. Religion, beliefs, tradition, values. The lingering question of liberals for conservatives is, for lack of more advanced vocabulary, "Why do you get to decide?" Who gave the power to conservatives to tell others how strictly they should interpret the Bible (if they follow its word), what they should believe, and how they were to carry out their lives? Who ever gave the authority for one person to say to another, "You are not allowed to feel this way based on my beliefs, so don't."
One family's values can differ from another's, as one religion's beliefs can differ from another's. Although there is a certain unquestionable set of morals all citizens are expected to follow, the word cannot be used to synonymously with the term "religious beliefs." As I choose to interpret the Bible more liberally, those who stick to its literal word choose to fight for a cause concerning human emotion that they cannot possibly control.
"When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so," Scalia wrote. Yet, he failed to address the different circumstances of the time. In the 1800s, technology was nonexistent, long-range communication would take days (if not weeks), religion was the law of the land, and people were scared. Those desiring to engage in same-sex relationships were discouraged from the possibility of doing so. They were too scared to express their orientations in fear of strong religious backlash and minimal to no support. Mass media has changed all of that. Those with homosexual orientations now have affirmed support which has empowered them to speak out against the wrongs they have been presented with.
"There is no such thing as same-sex marriage in the constitution. The words are not there, we've never had it in our history," Moore rambles on. Wasn't there also no such thing as slavery in the constitution? Or racial segregation? Yet, our history books scream about it. Weren't those not in our short history before, they, well, came about? Same-sex marriage is the same case, yet it's taken a couple more years for the issue to surface. As racial segregation was banned, so was homosexual matrimony. Yet, in the name of civil rights, both of those wrongs have now been reversed.
Many conservatives now speak of the fight to maintain their "religious freedoms," claiming the government and legal system is becoming more and more involved in them. Very ironic considering they were the ones desiring to force their beliefs onto others.
I can attest to the dissenting opinion, claiming that same-sex marriage is not an issue for the Supreme Court to decide but for the people of the United States to decide, democratically. Yet, I must disagree. This is not some bill, act, or law that came before the court. These are people's emotions, people's feelings. These concern people's lives. In the case of civil rights, which include social freedoms and equality under the law, the 14th amendment stands firm. As African Americans were oppressed, so was the LGBT community. As African Americans now exercise the full extent of the rights of any citizen of the United States, now so shall the LGBT community.
It seems as if the dissenting Supreme Court justices want to cover up their conservative religious views by affirming that the court has no right to decide in a case like this - a case concerning civil rights. They must've forgotten the extent of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, and fail to see the basic parallel underlyings of Obergefell v. Hodges and Brown v. Board of Education.
The United States of America is and will always be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." The principles this country was founded on, at first for religious freedom for all, then for freedom in itself, will always take precedence over the concept of individual belief. With freedom comes responsibility: the responsibility to accept others and avoid discrimination, and the responsibility to see other's points of view. Although one may disagree with the opinions and beliefs of those around, at least he still has the freedom to maintain his own.
