Did Justice Kennedy make up legal argument to promotoe homosexual marriage?
 |
| English: Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
As Chief Justice Roberts said in his dissent, “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not a legal judgment.”
The majority’s argument, expressed by Justice Kennedy, is that the right of same-sex couples to marry is based in individual autonomy as related to sexuality, in marriage as a fundamental right, in marriage as a privileged context for raising children, and in upholding marriage as central to civilization. But at every one of these points, the majority had to reinvent marriage in order to make its case. The Court has not merely ordered that same-sex couples be allowed to marry — it has fundamentally redefined marriage itself.
The inventive legal argument set forth by the majority is clearly traceable in Justice Kennedy’s previous decisions including Lawrence (2003) and Windsor (2013), and he cites his own decisions as legal precedent. As the Chief Justice makes clear, Justice Kennedy and his fellow justices in the majority wanted to legalize same-sex marriage and they invented a constitutional theory to achieve their purpose. It was indeed an act of will disguised as a legal judgment.
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the land, and its decisions cannot be appealed to a higher court of law. But the Supreme Court, like every human institution and individual, will eventually face two higher courts. The first is the court of history, which will render a judgment that I believe will embarrass this court and reveal its dangerous trajectory. The precedents and arguments set forth in this decision cannot be limited to the right of same-sex couples to marry. If individual autonomy and equal protection mean that same-sex couples cannot be denied what is now defined as a fundamental right of marriage, then others will arrive to make the same argument. This Court will find itself in a trap of its own making, and one that will bring great harm to this nation and its families. The second court we all must face is the court of divine judgment. For centuries, marriage ceremonies in the English-speaking world have included the admonition that what God has put together, no human being — or human court — should tear asunder. That is exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States has now done.
The threat to religious liberty represented by this decision is clear, present, and inevitable. Assurances to the contrary, the majority in this decision has placed every religious institution in legal jeopardy if that institution intends to uphold its theological convictions limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman. This threat is extended to every religious citizen or congregation that would uphold the convictions held by believers for millennia.
In that sense, everything has now changed. The highest court of the land has redefined marriage. Those who cannot accept this redefinition of marriage as a matter of morality and ultimate truth, must acknowledge that the laws of this nation concerning marriage will indeed be defined against our will. We must acknowledge the authority of the Supreme Court in matters of law. Christians must be committed to be good citizens and good neighbors, even as we cannot accept this redefinition of marriage in our churches and in our lives.
We must contend for marriage as God’s gift to humanity — a gift central and essential to human flourishing and a gift that is limited to the conjugal union of a man and a woman. We must contend for religious liberty for all, and focus our energies on protecting the rights of Christian citizens and Christian institutions to teach and operate on the basis of Christian conviction.
We cannot be silent, and we cannot join the moral revolution that stands in direct opposition to what we believe the Creator has designed, given, and intended for us. We cannot be silent, and we cannot fail to contend for marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
In one sense, everything has changed. And yet, nothing has changed. The cultural and legal landscape has changed, as we believe this will lead to very real harms to our neighbors. But our Christian responsibility has not changed. We are charged to uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman and to speak the truth in love. We are also commanded to uphold the truth about marriage in our own lives, in our own marriages, in our own families, and in our own churches.
We are called to be the people of the truth, even when the truth is not popular and even when the truth is denied by the culture around us. Christians have found themselves in this position before, and we will again. God’s truth has not changed. The Holy Scriptures have not changed. The gospel of Jesus Christ has not changed. The church’s mission has not changed. Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.
With the verdict of the Supreme Court today that legalizes same-sex marriage in the United States, we at Dallas Theological Seminary are grieved by this decision that seeks to legally yet wrongfully expand what God established from the beginning to be the divinely designed institution of marriage continue to support and adhere to a biblical view of marriage and sexuality because we believe such an approach to life and marriage honors God and makes for fulfillment in life the way God designed it.
In answering the questions of His disciples related to divorce, Jesus went back to creation to argue the original intent for marriage. Marriage was intended from the very beginning of creation to be the covenant union of a man and a woman in a permanent and exclusive relationship (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19: 4-9; Mark 10: 5-9). God’s design for this relationship was for the purposes of procreation, personal pleasure, and the fulfillment of the purposes of reflecting the image of the Creator and His desired relationship with His people (Genesis 1:27–28; 2:18–24; Ephesians 5:31–33). That image involves both male and female with marriage depicting their mutual cooperation in a designed diversity to steward God’s creation.
We believe God has also expressly reserved sexual intimacy and intercourse for heterosexual marriage (Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 3:5; 1 Corinthians 6:9). It is God's expectation that the married live in faithfulness to their spouse and unmarried should live pure and celibate lives, refraining from sexual intimacy (1 Thessalonians 4:3).
The English translation of our historic Seminary motto from 2 Timothy 4:2is “Preach the Word.” We intend to keep doing that and to equip others to do so as well. Our current slogan is taken from 1 Timothy 1:5 and that is “Teach Truth. Love Well.” As we approach a culture that does not share our biblical values or standards of conduct we still need to model love and pray for those with whom we disagree. This Jesus also taught (Matthew 5:44). As our culture begins to look more and more like that of the New Testament times, we need to remember and take heart that the message and mission of Jesus was birthed and flourished in such times. May God do it again in our lifetime.
Soberly and Prayerfully,
Dr. Mark L. Bailey
President
