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
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