Family Heritage Alliance on Supreme Court Ruling; Divided United States Supreme Court Decides On The Definition of Marriage

Divided United States Supreme Court Decides On The Definition of Marriage
Rapid City, SD, 06/26/2015
South Dakota Family Heritage Alliance

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  Friday, June 26, 2015

FHA Executive Director Dale Bartscher announced today that the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.  The case involved four combined cases from Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee.  The key questions they ruled on are whether the U.S. Constitution requires states to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples and whether the constitution requires states to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was performed legally in another state.

Today five justices of the Supreme Court ruled that all states must redefine marriage directly.

The FHA sees this ruling negatively affecting three major issues.

First, Marriage and Parenting.  Every child deserves the best opportunity we can give them to be raised by their married mom and dad. Today’s ruling puts the government’s stamp of approval on intentionally depriving kids of either their mom or their dad.  Redefining marriage redefines parenthood.  This new definition of marriage further weakens the institution of marriage by making it about the desires of adults rather than considering the good of children.

Second, Religious Freedom.  Regardless of whether someone supports or opposes same-sex marriage, I think we can all agree government shouldn’t force Americans to violate their beliefs about marriage.  Today’s ruling only increases the likelihood that our government will force Christians and other people of faith to celebrate or participate in same-sex marriages that violate their beliefs.  Now that same-sex marriage has been forced on our country, will there be tolerance for those whose faith teaches that marriage is the union of a man and a woman?

And third, Judicial Overreach.  The freedom to democratically address the most pressing social issues of the day is the heart of liberty. The Court took that freedom from the people.  The Court overrode the will of over 50 million Americans in 31 states who successfully voted to preserve the millennia-old definition of marriage.

Today as South Dakotans move forward we believe that much as the Roe v. Wade decision awakened pro-life Americans, we expect this ruling will re-energize efforts to protect and uphold God’s design for marriage in our culture and our laws.

At this writing, it is unclear as to the far-reaching ramifications of this ruling, and its impact on people of faith.  We are in the evaluation phase and more information is forthcoming.


18 thoughts on “Family Heritage Alliance on Supreme Court Ruling; Divided United States Supreme Court Decides On The Definition of Marriage”

  1. Wow…


    First: Parenting? How many kids live in SINGLE PARENT households today? this issue is hardly going to redefine what a family looks like, and it is hardly going to be to blame for kids growing up without two married parents.

    Second: Who is going to “FORCE” Christians to celebrate gay marriage? This has no impact on most peoples lives, NONE. Religious freedom is a two way street, it is what still allows the church to not perform marriages that violate there beliefs, but it also protects people who are not Christians from having to live in accordance with your religious beliefs. In other words, you don’t get to keep your cake and eat it too.

    Third: It is not judicial overreach, the whole point of the 3rd branch is to ensure that laws that are passed are in compliance with the constitution. They did exactly what they are supposed to do by shooting down laws that should have never existed, that is what they do, that is their entire purpose. Just because people don’t like something does not mean that it is constitutional to have laws against that something they don’t like.

    This was one of the dumbest things I’ve read. Also tired of the comparison with Roe vs. Wade – there is such a huge difference between these two topics.

    1. Great points, wow. That was one of the dumbest things I’ve read – well since reading Scalia’s childish rants the last two days!

  2. Wanted to add this for point 3: Was it also Judicial overreach when the supreme court overturned laws against interracial marriage? That was another (very much related) case where the courts had to overrule laws because they were not legal laws to begin with.

    1. Nathan– Big thumbs up, you said everything I was thinking… Are these people really that dumb OR that dishonest and pandering to the gullible?

    2. “Was it also Judicial overreach when the supreme court overturned laws against interracial marriage? “– Of course it was claimed to be by those at the time thumping their bible try to justify their racism…sound familiar?
      “”Was it also Judicial overreach when the supreme court gutted the voting rights bill and approved citizens united? “”Was it also Judicial overreach when the supreme court appointed a president with the least popular votes?

  3. You conservatives have had a rough week. First, you lost your silly confederate flag. Then, you found-out that your cousin can keep his federal subsidy for health insurance even though his state does not have a state exchange…. And now your brother can finally marry who your family has always referred too as your brother’s “best friend”……..

    Oh well, at least you all can still stare at your money and call it “free speech” thanks to the Citizens United decision.

    I guess we all win some and we all lose some at times….. 😉

  4. I’m surprised the alliance came out against the decision after supporting bills that enshrined same sex couples into the domestic relations law of South Dakota a couple of years ago.

    1. Perhaps, to reserve the word “marriage” as a religious term, but with equal status under the state for “domestic partnerships.”

      To some extent, the fight is over semantics and words DO mean things.

      Regardless of political affiliation, I really don’t know anyone that wants the State to interfere in personal relationships, nor do they HATE homosexuals (some may “hate the sin, but don’t hate the sinner”).

      There’s always a political advantage, for those who choose to use it, to create factions and pit them against each other by demonizing an issue into “us against them.”

      We’re fools when we allow them to do that to us.

      A majority of Americans were supportive of same sex relationships and legal partnerships a long time ago, but by rephrasing the issue as “marriage” they created a “hot button” to factionalize the public to their own political advantage.

      It should NOT be up to government to define our personal relationships, who we love or who we associate with , it should be up to us as individuals. Once we cede that authority to the State, we lose our individual freedoms to define ourselves and the lives we choose to live.

      If we truly believe in freedom of choice, diversity, co-existance, civil rights and personal liberty, the LAST thing we would ever advocate is a STRONG and CENTRALIZED government over a population of over 325,000,000 people.

      That just won’t work.

      1. I’m not sure, Mr. Beal, but it appears that you just contradicted your own arguments (that is if you are not jesting).

        You say it is not government’s place to define our relationships, but that is exactly what state governments have done with marriage. As members of the Union, states are subject to the laws (as interpreted by the US Supreme Court) of the Union. Plain and simple.

        So you argue against a strong central government and therefore must be a proponent of:

        Blacks forced to ride in the back of the bus.
        Whites Only restaurants, parks and other places.
        Poll taxes.
        Segregation in our educational institutions.
        State – to – State tariffs.
        No interracial marriages.

        But I’m sure you’re not a proponent of these things. How could any reasonable person be?

        But all these are things that some state governments cheerfully promoted and that the proponents complained about being fixed once the strong central government stepped in and forced them to make it right.

        Get over it. Today and forever in the US, men and women will not be stopped from marrying the person they love by third-rate welfare state governments.

  5. William, words no longer mean anything. Yes, Winston, we conservatives have had a hard week. We are living in a republic in which words mean anything. I just read an article from Politico that is already saying what I have said would be the natural progression of what is to come.
    And even though the article states that there is NO way bestiality or child marriage, I remind our good editors at Politico that 50 years ago, nobody would say that marriage no longer means what it once meant. Marriage now means whatever anybody wants it to mean.

    1. You are so right. Horrible week for many conservatives.

      The language has been bastardized for generations and to the favor of many different factions. Just imagine anyone who would think that pizza is a vegetable or that money is speech.

      Conservatives can wring their hands all they want, but the reality is the country is evolving. And conservatives are being left behind. There is nothing conservatives can do about this – it’s simply demographics. So it’s just like it’s always been. People can either be an agent of change or they can be a victim of it. The good news here is that it looks like there is no such thing as a victim of same sex marriage.

  6. The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least — and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by discrimination against gays. – BG

    1. BG, conservatives are not discriminating against gays. That is like saying a boy is being discriminated against because he cannot joing the Girl Scouts. Marriage used to have a meaning in this country. It no longer does. Are you willing to discriminate against four people who wish to marry? As a conservative, I have no problem with a civil union. I would even like to see civil unions have the same rights as a marriage. Just don’t show me a donkey and tell me it is a horse. BTW, SCOTUS has just imposed its values upon the rest of us.

  7. BTW, SCOTUS has just imposed its values upon the rest of us”….”–How? Why are the personal lives of others any of your business? How is this decision going to have any effect on “the rest of us”.?

    1. Jaa Dee, just what is it about the word “marriage” that people of the same gender want to use it? In answer to your question, SCOTUS has just told us that people of the same gender are “married”. There are some people who have religious reasons as to why same-sex unions are not marriages. They believe such unions to be morally wrong. But SCOTUS has told those people that they have to accept that. That is imposing their values on the rest of us. And if two people want to be united, it is NOT my business. But if someone is selling me a horse and brings me a donkey and tells me it is the same, there is a problem. After these two disasters of decisions, we live in a country in which words have lost their meaning. BTW, do you object to three or more people marrying?

  8. My only hope is that same sex couples, who demand (now legally) that we give them respect as a married couple, give the same respect to people who do not feel comfortable participating in their ceremony. I have no problem with people being with whomever they want to be with, as long as they don’t get in my or anyone else’s face and demand my/their participation by baking a cake, taking photos, etc or face being sued and losing their livelihoods. The best answer to this question was given by a gay GOP legislator who said just what I am saying, but in a much better way. His hope was that everyone respect everyone else’s beliefs and that we all get along. I hope this happens, but I don’t have a lot of hope for it. BTW, I attended a relative’s gay wedding, and it was large, tastefully done, and while I might not agree completely with this being a marriage, I respect their decision and in the case of this couple, they respect other’s decisions and beliefs. That is the way it should be.

  9. W. hy do you need a license from the government to live with anyone anyway? Let us just do away with the government involvement in marriage and leave it to the churches, synagogues and mosques to define what they believe marriage to be and act accordingly. Marriage is largely a religious institution and should not be a government institution. I don’t need a government license for my Bar or Bat Mitzvah, my confirmation or my baptism.

Comments are closed.