A question about our constitutional right

Letters to Editor - WSJ July 2, 2015

Obergefell v. Hodges is the Roe v. Wade of the 21st century. But just as states, little by little, push back the boundaries of what constitutes legal abortion, they will now have to do the same to uphold the right to religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment against those who will inevitably use the Obergefell decision to persecute those who continue to act on long and sincerely held religious beliefs.

Just like Roe, Obergefell purports to decide and settle a social issue by finding a heretofore unknown constitutional right where none previously existed, rather than allowing such issues to be settled by citizens of the several states where such issues like abortion and marriage should be decided. The Tenth Amendment empowers the states to resolve these issues on their own, while no amendment permits the Supreme Court to invent new constitutional rights.

Supporters of Obergefell will be quick to proclaim that it is now the “law of the land” and that devout Christians must therefore abandon—at least publicly and in their business dealings—their religious beliefs or face serious legal and civil consequences. I’ll accept that argument just as soon as liberals accept that the Second Amendment is also the law of the land and stop agitating to restrict my gun rights.

Dave Erchull
Tucson, Ariz.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/same-sex-marriage-democratic-laws-and-the-court-1435757258

So far the ruling only affects government agents, not private individuals, or private property. It will have to be seen whether the courts stretch it. Research Loving V Virginia 1967, where SCOTUS ruled in the same fashion for interracial marriage. Private churches(not government) still refused to marry interracial without interference from the government.

Damn I am showing my age...

Just like Roe, Obergefell purports to decide and settle a social issue by finding a heretofore unknown constitutional right where none previously existed

Click to expand...

As much as I despise incomplete interpretations of the Constitution the notion of the right of free association has been around long enough to pretty much be considered settled. The notion has been used to decide whether or not parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit (barring physical abuse but including what some consider medical neglect), whether you can establish a legal relationship with someone of another race (Loving merely being the favorite exemplar), and also whether or not you can be forced to let people you do not want to associate with work next to you or live next door to you.

Your religion and your personal beliefs are still allowed to consider and declare people in same sex marriages to be unclean, and to refuse to perform sacraments of marriage about them. There are some technicalities your religion will need to adhere to, and certain government "privileges" it will have to give up, but for some folks marital "purity" will continue to be more important than exemption from certain taxes.

This is different from the issue of a commercial establishment refusing to provide their service to certain categories. Maybe one day those who carry a firearm for personal protection will also be recognized as a group that should be freed from arbitrary discrimination in public accommodation.

stay safe.