I realize a lot has been covered on the gay marriage ruling, which occurred late last month, and I haven’t shied away from voicing my opinions on the matter. But despite my strong belief in, and support for, marriage equality (along with approximately 60 percent of the country, according to an article by Scott Clement and Robert Barnes of the Washington Post), the final ruling was not unanimous. In fact, it was an extremely close 5-4 vote among our Supreme Court justices, leaving those in opposition with room for valid arguments and to continue their protests even after the final ruling. Because of this, and my somewhat heated response last week, I would like to take some time to respectfully acknowledge some arguments from the opposing side of the gay marriage debate.
Let’s take the issue of whether the Supreme Court really should have taken it into its hands to make such a ruling on behalf of the nation. This has been an issue for quite a while, and in the past the Court has refused to review the case because it has felt that it is up to the states to handle such a social issue. According to a July 2015 article in The Wall Street Journal by Peggy Noonan, the Supreme Court’s ruling has essentially “stolen this issue from the people, which will make a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.” This is a good point, considering that the Constitution says nothing about marriage, so, historically, for the most part, the issue has been left to the states to handle. Personally I tend to lean toward adhering to the original intent set by our forefathers concerning our Constitution. If it is decided that changes are necessary, they should be made with nothing but the utmost certainty, seriousness and care. So I do understand that conservatives would be upset with the ruling, and not necessarily only because of the case itself, but also because of how the ruling came to be.
The method by which gay marriage was nationally legalized can lead to more than just irritated conservative patriots. Not respecting how a law was imposed can generate more feelings of detest for the social issue and case that brought the law about. This can make it more difficult for people to accept the law and treat those involved with the respect they’re seeking and deserve. If a conservative associates the legalization of gay marriage with a law that was not enacted properly, he may then start to associate gays with what he considers the corruption of the foundation of our nation. Such associations, while unjust, are understandable to me, and I can see why it would be difficult for our right-wing friends with this mindset to accept gay marriage now.
So, while I don’t agree with all opposing arguments, namely religious perspectives, there are some valid cases against the legalization of gay marriage out there that I am willing to acknowledge. Our Supreme Court, and the methods by which it reviews and makes its rulings, is founded on a traditional system that was created by the founders of this country for a reason. While I do think that the legalization of gay marriage was inevitable no matter which legal route it took, I agree that the method by which it was implemented was, as many believe, unfortunate.