The Supreme Court finally released the decision most court watchers had been waiting for this morning and … it went pretty much the way everybody thought it would. So now what? Well, to get a jump start on the barrels of digital ink waiting to be spilled in analysis, here are three thoughts.
First, this will by no means settle the issue. Folks on the left will celebrate it wildly. Folks on the right will declare it unjust, unlawful, and a sparklingly clear example of legislating from the bench. Activist groups on both the right and the left will use it to raise lots and lots of money from folks who either want to continue advancing the issue while the getting is good, or who want to battle back against what they see as a dramatic judicial overreach. Democratic politicians running for office in the 2016 cycle will use it to declare all those unwilling to support and celebrate the total victory of the homosexual revolution extremists. Republican politicians will use it to rally support as they ring the bell for religious liberty and the importance of being able to appoint future Supreme Court justices.
In a sense, there really was not a win here. The vitriolic outcry from the left had the decision gone the other way would very likely have blown away most of what will come from the right in coming days (I don’t say all because there are some like the pastor who threatened to set himself on fire should this happen who will undoubtedly jump to ridiculous extremes). On the other hand, for the millions of Americans who did not want to see this happen, this will serve as mud in their eye, and rather than changing their hearts or minds, it will entrench and harden what may have been slowly softening opinions on the matter. The dissenting opinion by Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas makes this point: “Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens — through the democratic process — to adopt their view. That ends today.”
The last time the Supreme Court nullified all state laws on a matter as controversial as this was in the Roe v. Wade decision, and, rather than settling the issue, that only served to blow it up far more than a more restrained decision may have done. Expect this issue to stay hot for many more years.
Second, the majority opinion did include a nod to the beliefs of the other side and the religious liberty angle and for this we should be grateful (especially since Justice Kennedy has apparently not changed his view that opponents of same-sex marriage cannot possibly have a reason for doing so beyond animus as was his opinion in the 2013 Windsor decision). That being said, the nod to religious liberty isn’t exactly robust: “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.” With respect to Justice Kennedy, that’s pretty weak.
As Justice Thomas noted in his dissenting opinion: “It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph … and even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition.” In a separate dissent Justice Alito notes that “if the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible.”
In his statement Justice Kennedy allows that people should be free to teach their beliefs on this matter and to structure their families according to their beliefs. This is a great definition of freedom of worship, but it is a far cry from the more robust and praiseworthy concept of freedom of religion which goes on from mere freedom of worship to include the right to practice and live out the logical implications of the otherwise privately held religious beliefs. I wonder what Justice Kennedy would think if enough religious conservatives on this matter taught their beliefs so effectively that public opinion lurched way back in the other direction such that a commanding majority opposed same-sex marriage and the moral legitimacy of homosexual behavior? This court has shown itself to lean more on public opinion than legal precedent on this matter. Would the rights they have afforded to the roughly 5 percent of the country who is homosexual then have to be taken away? Or would this majority be forced to simply live with a legal reality it staunchly opposes?
With such a weak statement on the many religious liberty issues many have feared will rise from this decision including no statement at all addressing Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s hesitating admission that things like the tax exempt status of evangelical schools which do not wish to allow for campus housing for gay couples will “be an issue,” we should expect there to be many cases in the near future of conservative individuals penalized in some way for refusing to participate in or otherwise endorse the majority’s declaration today.
Third and finally, what is actually going to change as a result of this decision for those Christians who are committed to a historically orthodox view on the matter of homosexuality and same-sex marriage (a view shared by another 2 billion Christians around the world, as well as 1.6 billion Muslims, 1 billion Hindus, 380 million Buddhists, and many others)? Well, there will be some political changes. And probably some cultural changes. But beyond that — very little.
Our job is still the same: proclaim the truth in love and make disciples of Jesus everywhere we go. We still need to love our neighbors whether we agree with the particular lifestyle they are living or not. We still need to minister to the hurting and broken the healing love of Christ. We still need to point out with boldness and humility the emptiness of moral relativism. We need to be there to help those who find out just how empty it is pick up the pieces and find their way back to life again. We need to remind people that in spite of loud assertions to the contrary, we are not fully self-defining creatures. We still need to bring wholeness to broken families, particularly the children who often go overlooked today except as a prop for the adults on one side or the other to make their point. For instance, Justice Kennedy’s opinion makes mention of the hundreds of thousands of children who stood to be harmed if same-sex marriage was not legalized in all 50 states. Well, the simple truth is that the only way a child can come to have same-sex parents is through a traumatic experience. Either a parent dies, his parents divorce, she is adopted away from biological parents for one reason or another, or through the use of medical technology he is born without ever knowing his biological mother or father. Children who have been through trauma for any reason deserve our love and care as Christians and we still need to do that.
In sum, the decision may not have gone the way many Christians would have preferred (but which any thinking court-watchers could have predicted), but we still have a duty to be the church. We are first and foremost citizens of a different kingdom and we need to live like it. Hand-wringing and vitriol have no place in the lives of Jesus followers. Let us pray for guidance and go above and beyond in our practice of love of neighbor. Let us strive for clarity in our positions and our theology and charity in its application — particularly with those with whom we disagree and with whom we happen to share a pew. Anything less defames the name of the God we serve. This decision may yet bring lasting harm to our society in its official sanctioning of what we understand to be a sinful state of affairs, but we are in the business of proclaiming the power of the one who defeated sin and brings real life to all those who will receive him. In short, let’s keep at it because Jesus isn’t back yet and there’s much work to be done.