The real issue on the Supreme Court gay marriage ruling

On June 26, 2015 in the landmark case OBERGEFELL v. HODGES, gay marriage was legalized in the United States by the Supreme Court by five of its nine judges, with four dissenting.  As I read through the dissenting remarks I expected to see the four judges, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito indicate all the reasons that gay marriage is harmful for America -- and society for that matter.  Instead I was surprised to see arguments inferring that the Supreme Court should not be in the business of conducting moral decisions regarding law, and that the choice had been taken from the voice of the people when that decision was made for the entire country.  Prior to that time, the case had gone to the 6th District Court of Appeals where it was ruled that it was not constitutional for a court to rule an issue that should be "in the hands of state voters."  So the bigger question is, should this decision have been made by an unelected court based on constitutional law where technically there was no provision for such?  

At that point, thirty six states had already legalized same-sex marriage, so couldn't the courts have stood back and allowed the other fourteen the time necessary to do it on their own?  As one quote from a dissenting judiciary stated, " The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment."

It also stated the following on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.  "This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be."  It went on to say that " It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer."  

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day-Saints, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  Research shows that children thrive best when raised by their own biological parents," and I support all entities that support those means.  I am not a homophobe, and have friends and associates who are gay.  I believe in their fundamental rights but feel marriage is also fundamental to the raising of children and society should support laws that help children to be raised in the best way possible. 

If the Supreme Court stepped out of bounds in overruling an appeals court in this decision, where is the justice and faith in the system?  Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of our  church has stated in reference to officials ruling outside of their bounds, “Government officials must not apply these duties selectively according to their personal preferences — whatever their source,”

This is not to say the gay movement does not have the right to legislation that allows gay marriage.  It just needed to be done by the voice of the people as prescribed in the Constitution.

References -

OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. (n.d.). Retrieved January 22, 2019.

Oaks, Dallin H. (Oct. 20, 2015) The boundary between Church and State, Second Annual Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference: Sacramento, California.

Thoughts on divorce . . .

Several years ago, I found myself distraught over the separation of a family who lived in our idyllic neighborhood of thirty-something couples, each who had two-to-four children in roughly the same age ranges.  Most of us had moved into the brand-new neighborhood several years prior and since then had raised our children together.  The news of the divorce came as a shock to the rest of us.  We had noticed the wife seemed somewhat disconnected, however, her husband was a good provider and father, and actually a really great guy.  Her only reason for the breakup was that they "really hadn't been happy for a long time."  He begged to differ, and after many years of living in the neighborhood together, none of the neighbors had noticed anything that would have led us to believe they weren't happy, nor was there any abuse. 

This couple fell into the category of divorce labeled by researcher Paul R. Amato as "low conflict" where a spouse or spouses do not fight frequently or express hostility, but become emotionally distant and end the marriage to find happiness with someone else.  Their interpretation of the separation is often very different than that of their children who are left seeing the situation as "unexpected, inexplicable and unwelcome."   

A month or so into this situation we had an opportunity to speak with the husband.  He was obviously dealing with the emotional devastation this situation had caused him, but upon asking him how his children were faring, he replied very insistently, "the children are fine."  However, a few weeks later I spent a week with his two 12-year-old twins at a girl’s camp sponsored by our church.  One night around the campfire, while the girls shared their feelings about God and their families, his girls cried and cried and stated what a hard summer it had been with their parents breaking up.  Those girls were not fine, and my heart ached for them.  

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we take marriage so seriously that we are married in sacred temples “for eternity” by priesthood leaders who have been given authority, passed down by God through his prophets, to perform these marriages.  Two decades ago our church leaders created The Family – A Proclamation to the World, where it is stated, “HUSBAND AND WIFE have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other,” as well as, “THE FAMILY is ordained of God. . . . Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”

It’s now been 14 years since my good friends divorced, and since that time, their children have watched their parents go through not only one divorce, but both divorced again within five years of their second marriages. (By the way, according to available census data, second marriages have a higher divorce rate than those of first marriages.) 

Considering this example of my friends, and how representative they are of many families who have suffered divorce, is divorce the best answer for parents who have fallen out of love? Dallin H Oaks, an ecclesiastical leader for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has stated, "If you are already descending into the low state of marriage-in-name-only, please join hands, kneel together, and prayerfully plead for help and the healing power of the Atonement. Your humble and united pleadings will bring you closer to the Lord and to each other and will help you in the hard climb back to marital harmony."

When parents are willing to do the hard work of keeping their marriages and families together, their children benefit in many ways.  It is not an easy road, but one that is well worth the effort. Remember the Apostle Paul when he said, “all things work together for good to them that love God” (Roman’s 8:28)

Works cited - 

Linda J. Waite and others, Does Divorce Make People Happy? Findings from a Study of Unhappy Marriages (Institute for American Values, 2002), 6; see also scholarly studies cited in Marriage and the Law: A Statement of Principles (Institute for American Values, 2006), 21.

Amato, P. (Fall, 2005). The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social, and emotional well-being of the next generation. The Future of Children, 15(2), 75-96.

Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, “Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces, 2001,” Current Population Reports, P70-80 (Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005).

“The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” (1995, November). Ensign, 25, p. 102.