Marriage ruling is lofty and certain
It was a narrow decision, the typical 5-4 vote, but nonetheless certain: The Supreme Court ruled Friday that the U.S. Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.
That ruling certainly was not welcomed by everyone and most likely will remain controversial for a long time. But it is the law of the land, reached by our nation’s tried and true legal process, and it must be respected.
Indeed, shortly after the 9 a.m. announcement, Tarrant County District Attorney Sharen Wilson notified County Clerk Mary Louise Garcia to begin “issuing marriage licenses to all persons who qualify, regardless of their sex,” said a news release issued by Garcia’s office.
Anything less would have been dereliction of duty.
The county’s first such license was issued shortly after 10:30 a.m. to Fort Worth Police Cpl. Tracey Knight and her wife, Shannon Knight. The two were married two years ago in California but wanted to marry again in Texas.
Tracey Knight is the Fort Worth Police Department’s liaison to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
The court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, was criticized by other justices not only for its legal reasoning but for the loftiness of its language.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissent saying decisions about recognizing marriages should be left to the states.
“Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the [14th Amendment] Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society,” Roberts wrote. “If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.”
His point is strong, but the patchwork of laws regarding same-sex marriage across the U.S. must be resolved. Rights are lofty principles, and basic individual rights must be the same in Texas as in any other state.
Roberts said the ruling also “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” in the First Amendment.
Every state that has adopted same-sex marriage, he noted, has also adopted accommodations for religious practice.
Texas has adopted such accommodations, providing crucial protections.
Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday ordered all state agencies to preserve religious liberties and First Amendment rights in “any agency decision, including but not limited to granting or denying benefits, managing agency employees, entering or enforcing agency contracts, licensing and permitting decisions, or enforcing state laws and regulations.”
What exactly that will mean in practice — might an agency employee charged with delivering a service to married couples refuse to perform that service for a same-sex couple? — is a matter of guesswork at this point.
Despite his loftiness, Kennedy was also methodical in weaving prior court decisions into dealing with objections to same-sex marriage. He cited four guiding principles:
▪ There is an “abiding connection between marriage and liberty.” Through marriage “two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.”
▪ The right to marry “is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.”
▪ Marriage safeguards children and families. Same-sex couples raise biological and adopted children, but “without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.”
▪ Marriage is “a keystone of our social order.” It includes many legal rights, from tax benefits to inheritance and property rights, survivor benefits and health insurance advantages. Without those, same-sex couples “are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives.”
Kennedy’s argument is persuasive, and the court majority agreed. Same-sex marriages are constitutionally protected.
This story was originally published June 26, 2015 at 7:49 PM with the headline "Marriage ruling is lofty and certain."