“When it really counts
Constitutional law is as much about culture as it is about the Constitution.”
(Dushku, 2015) Does our culture drive
ones perceptions of the Constitution and its applicability to the trends of the
current time? If “Constitutional law
drives culture” (Dushku, 2015) then could the same be said in reverse?
As I understand, the
Constitution was created to ascertain the promise of certain rights for the
American people and to establish governmental laws fundamental to our society
as a nation. Little is different as it
pertains to basic human rights almost 230 years after the Constitution’s
creation and signing. Yet, we encounter
often those that question its applicability to our day and the current trends
of the nation as they pertain to such matters as the right to bear arms and the
right to marriage acknowledgement among same sex marriage unions.
In the Supreme Court’s
ruling in 2015 to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals as it pertained
to the lawfulness of same sex marriages, Supreme Court justices ruled that the Constitution
granted the petitioners their right to “equal dignity in the eyes of the law” (Obergfell
v. Hodges, 2015) Their acknowledgment of
marriage’s many advantages as well as it being the primary bond of society
shows the courts opinion of the marriage union.
The justices all appear to have a high regard for marriage and its role
in the unification and support of our nation.
Yet, their ruling says nothing as to the nature of these unions as it
pertains to our creation and the purpose of our gender.
I see how the desire for
equality is driving force behind the petitioner’s request of the Supreme Court. I see how acknowledgement of their love and
devotion to one another is meaningful and of great importance to them. I see that they too have a high regard for
marriage and therefore desire to be equal partakers of the advantages that
acknowledged marriages in America are afforded.
I do, however, also feel
that equality of rights should not equate to support of same sex marriage as
the new acknowledged norm. Equality does
not necessarily equate to support and acceptance. I feel that those that desire to be a part of
a same sex union should be shown love and respect as any other human being
deserves. I also feel though that while
they are deserving of equal rights and respect that I am deserving of my right
to disagree as to their view that same sex marriage is an acceptable
alternative to a union between man and woman.
I feel that God created His children to fill the purpose of their
creation, to learn to live happily and to provide bodies for His Spirit
children who have yet to come to the earth.
I agree with the sentiments
of church leaders that, upon the ruling to legalize same sex marriage in Utah,
said “As we face this and other issues of our time, we encourage all to bear in
mind our Heavenly Father’s purposes in creating the earth and providing for our
mortal birth and experience here as His children. “God created man in his own
image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And
God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27–28). “Therefore shall a man leave
his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be
one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Marriage between a man and a woman
was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the
well-being of society. Strong families, guided by a loving mother and father,
serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith,
and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are
important to civilization and crucial to eternal salvation.
Changes in the civil law do not, indeed
cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold
and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in
society.” (Official Statement, 2014) I
believe that the changes made to the civil law in no way change the law of
God. I love and respect those that wish
to experience equality but that doesn’t mean that I am required to accept their
views as my own.
References:
Dushku, A. (Writer). (2015, July 7). Religious
Freedom Annual Review (Conference) [Video file]. Retrieved January 13,
2017, from http://www.iclrs.org/content/events/111/2130.mp4
The religious freedom implications of
the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage in Obergefell V. Hodges.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (June
26, 2015).
No comments:
Post a Comment