The battle to overturn Roe v. Wade went on for almost half a century. Most of us had grown discouraged that we would never see it struck down in our lifetimes. Many legal scholars and pundits insisted it wasn’t going anywhere. Then along came Donald Trump, who, upon being elected, went on to appoint three Supreme Court justices, which ultimately triggered the beginning of the end for Roe.
Nobody could believe it then. But now we may be living in the middle of that same domino effect regarding same-sex marriage.
Back in 2015, shortly after gay marriage was legalized through the Supreme Court’s decision on Obergefell v. Hodges, then Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis drew a line in the sand. Davis said she could not, as a Christian, issue marriage licenses for same-sex unions, sparking national media attention and outrage in her community.
This launched a string of lawsuits filed against Davis left and right, but she refused to comply even after the courts ordered her to, landing her in jail for refusal to abide by federal law.
“This whole situation has never been a gay or a lesbian issue for me,” Davis explained in a tearful interview. “It’s all about upholding the Word of God.”
Ten years later, her persecution is still ongoing, and she is still standing strong. Davis called on the United States Supreme Court to hear her case via an appeal of the $360,000 she has been ordered to pay, both in legal fees and damages to a couple whom she denied a marriage license.
In the appeal, Davis petitions the Supreme Court to answer three questions:
1) Whether the First Amendment’s free exercise clause can be used as a legal defense against being held liable for emotional distress damages.
2) Whether a government official sued personally for emotional distress without any actual damages can claim personal constitutional defenses like anybody else.
3) Most significantly — Whether the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling should be overturned.
This marks the first time since Obergefell that the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to take up a case challenging its legality.
So what will happen? Will they even hear the case? If they do, how will they rule? God only knows the answers to these pressing questions; what we do know is that this is a battle over definitions. What is marriage? We have to go back to first principles.
For all of human history, up until about 5 seconds ago, marriage was seen unanimously as a union between one man and one woman. It is the only union capable of fulfilling one of the most important components of marriage, which is procreation. It is the only union that the United States has recognized for its entire history.
If those in favor of same-sex marriage are so confident that the Constitution was designed to allow it, maybe the best way to settle this debate would be to ask them how the framers—James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and so on—would define marriage if they were here today. Deciding on Obergefell, how would they rule? I think you and I both know the answer to that question.
We pray the justices themselves recognize that, should they hear this case.
