Justice Scalia's Dissent

                One year ago on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court “stripped the rights of states to legally define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman” in Obergefell v. Hodges. The past year has brought many challenges to Americans because of the decision made by the justices.

                Nate Madden at Conservative Review wrote an article titled “Antonin Scalia’s Gay Marriage Dissent Turns One Year Old” in which he reminds his readers of the scathing dissenting opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia. In his dissent Justice Scalia warns the American people about what would happen because of the vote. Over the past year we have seen people put in jail, sued, and forced out of business because they do not believe in same-sex unions. We have seen states forced to comply with the decision. All of this happened because the public is being coerced to give their approval for same-sex marriages. 

                Justice Scalia writes, “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court…. This practice of Constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied … by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence.”

                Madden shares Scalia’s explanation of what really happened. “Scalia then points to the period leading up to the court’s ruling as the true triumph of liberty, rather than the decision itself. `Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views,’ he wrote. `Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 states, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win.’”

                Madden then concludes, “What Justice Scalia described was a true republic in action, at least until the judiciary put a stop to it. The greater problem is that, as devastating as the decision may yet prove to be for the religious liberty of people and institutions who still affirm a traditional, organic and conjugal understanding of marriage, the precedent set in this case and others by the federal judiciary point to a truth antithetical to our political and historical identity as Americans: we are being governed less and less by our own consent.”

                When the majority of justices voted to approve same-sex marriage, I believe that they opened a Pandora’s Box. I believe that we have not yet seen all the destruction that will come from this decision. A tiny minority of Americans has forced through a decision that will bring negative effects to all Americans.