An examination of the Supreme Court’s recent same-sex ruling, Obergefell v. Hodges.

By Mario Gonzalez, Esq.
For more, visit

A Fairytale
In 1837 Danish author, Hans Christian Andersen, penned the fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” about cunning swindlers who concocted a scheme to defraud a vain emperor. The emperor was duped into buying a garment hailed as being made from a valuable fabric invisible to anyone either unfit for his position or “hopelessly stupid.” The June 26, 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, came as a result of the use of the same deceptive technique by lobbying groups aiming to dupe the American public, the media, and now the U.S. Supreme Court into buying a fantasy to our collective shame as a nation.

Contrary to popular belief, marriage equality was not achieved by this ruling. Even before this decision, everyone in America had a legal right to marry. What this ruling actually did was obliterate the definition of marriage, an institution held sacrosanct for thousands of years. It defined the term into meaninglessness. As a result of the ruling, same-sex couples can now enter into an as yet undefined social compact which has no gender limitations and soon will have no numerical limitation, as limiting marriage to two people will be legally problematic based on the legal logic used in this holding.

Government is God
Through this decision the Supreme Court has unilaterally overridden the legislative will of over thirty (30) states. And as in the Obamacare decision that preceded it, the Court here unequivocally solidifies its new standard that words no longer have a definite legal meaning. Words now mean only what SCOTUS says they mean. Based on this opinion, the Court has not only established itself as the Supreme Court of the land, but as a Supreme entity. It is no longer limited to merely interpreting the laws of the several States in light of the Constitution, but can now apparently confer dignity on what or who it sees fit.

Justice Kennedy’s “Newspeak.”
Justice Kennedy gives lip service to the virtues of marriage by saying, “It is fair and necessary to say these references [to marriage] were based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex.” And that “…reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world still hold this view of marriage.” But his soliloquy makes this irrelevant, as he ultimately uses the Court’s newly found divine authority to label these “reasonable” people as both wrong and biased. In this context he makes an ominous statement:

“Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied.”

This statement essentially excludes people whose opinions are forged by their moral and religious ideals from involving themselves in the legislative process and further proscribes the application of their beliefs to democratically influence public policy. He ‘touts’ religious freedom apparently believing religious communities to be comprised of legal idiots when he says,

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. 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.”

So basically, religious people can constitutionally believe and teach whatever they want to [even if this Court has deemed it bigoted], so long as they don’t practice their beliefs, a right portentously excluded from this statement. Justice Thomas’ response to this ruse is significant, characterizing the majority’s assumption that government confers “dignity” through marriage as nonsensical:

“Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved... [a]nd those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”

He calls out Kennedy’s attempt at deception, quoting portions of the above excerpt and adds,

“Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for ‘religious organizations and persons… as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths’. Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.”

What About Marriage Equality?
Chief Justice Roberts, in his vehement dissent, states, “The majority’s decision [to announce a new civil right] is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.” A person does not find their identity and gain civil rights by a pattern of willful behavior. Behaving or feeling a certain way is an aspect of our human experience and does not in itself establish an inherent immutable characteristic. To be “immutable” something must be permanent – unchanging. Being black, for example, is a legitimate constitutional immutable characteristic. Even using the amicus brief actually quoted by Justice Kennedy in support of this Court’s mistaken contention that “sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic,” (yeah, I read it), said “… fully 88% of gay men and 68% of lesbians reported that they had ‘no choice’ [about their sexual orientation] at all.” Based on this Court's own supporting briefs from which it draws its irrational conclusion, 12%, or 1-2 out of 10 self-professed homosexual men and over 1/3 of professed lesbians in the studies feel they have a choice as to their sexual orientation. By any stretch of the imagination these numbers do not support the conclusion that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. On the contrary, most modern studies support sexual orientation to be more fluid than we thought before.

That said, the question was never one of equality. The question always was whether an alleged committed relationship between two same-sex parties could legitimately be called a “marriage” and who should decide whether this is so. According to Justice Kennedy, a man who just two years ago in United States v. Windsor wrote an opinion that concluded, “[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” and then went on to write, “[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations,” now has completely reversed his previous opinion and presently feels that it is the Federal Government, not States, through the divine Supreme Court that should decide what a marriage actually is.

The Court has now unfortunately legally codified a false narrative. Based on strained studies engineered to push an agenda bent on establishing a bogus civil right where such a right does not constitutionally exist, we are now faced with a “new” civil right for a non-existent and non-discrete class of people. As a result, people of faith will suffer greatly because of the tsunami of litigation that will follow against those who will dare to refuse to bow to Baal (figuratively) by not compromising their deeply held religious convictions. Justices, Judges and City Clerks will likely be fired all around the country if they do not perform same-sex ceremonies they find repugnant to their faith. Religious schools and organizations may also soon be sued and may well loose public grants and ultimately their tax-exempt status as a direct consequence of this ruling, a ruling purportedly aimed only at guaranteeing equality for a fluid burdened class.

Chief Justice Roberts issued this chilling warning of impending attacks against people of faith,

“Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution (First Amendment). Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same- sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

In the end, this decision had little to do with equality or the U.S. Constitution and everything to do with a social agenda aimed at vilifying and ultimately mortally wounding all who look upon the sexual behaviors in question as morally wrong. Like the fairy tale, it is all about forcing the American people to recognize and laud a non-existent civil right fancifully displayed before the American people by a largely immoral Court. A Court that has, by its decision in this case, shown itself to be naked.