Week 3: Threats to Marriage

Marriage is something I believe in.  I always have.  After reading about the case of Obergefell v Hodges (2015), the case in which the Supreme Court deemed same-sex marriage as legal and open to all of the same benefits as the traditional marriage, I learned the definitions of the long-held beliefs in this country of what marriage is.  “The lifelong union of a man and a woman always promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life” (Opinion of the Court 3).  Marriage is something everyone looks toward as the fundamental unit in our society.  “Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm” (Opinion of the Court 3).  Not only is marriage a religious union, but a civil union as well.  “It’s dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found along, or a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons” (Opinion of the Court 3).  In life and in a marriage, two can be stronger and support each other, making it a more robust union.  “Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and admirations” (Opinion of the Court 3).  It is a basic need to feel loved, protected, and secure.  It is through this partnership that we can find hope. 

It was with these statements and beliefs that the petitioners used as the basis of the argument for same-sex marriage that was brought before the Supreme Court.  We live in a country with freedoms, including religious and individual autonomy.  Deciding who we marry shapes us and makes us who we are.  “It fulfills yearnings for security, safe have, and connection that express our common humanity.  Civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decisions whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition” (Opinion of the Court 13).   One can plainly see why there is an innate desire to find a mate. 

Adam and Eve were the first marriage, and their union led to children which constituted the first family and basic unit.  But for them, the purpose of marriage was to also procreate.  “Marriage is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress” (Opinion of the Court 16).  I find that is a good indication of what God had in mind when he created man and woman.  “It is not good for man to be alone…” (Abraham 5:14).  Justice Roberts, a dissenter in this case, said that marriage and family “is a pattern so deeply pressed into the substance of our social life that any constitutional doctrine in this area must be built upon this basis”.  (Roberts dissenting 18)  So the question stands….should the definition of marriage be changed to include a marriage to someone of the same sex?  Those who feel it should obviously see the benefits of marriage.  They have the same desires of companionship and security, connection and protection.  The majority (which is really only 5 of the 9 members) of the Supreme Court felt they made a valid point and voted in favor of this change. 

Scalia, one of the dissenting Justices, sarcastically claimed, that five judges confidently concluded every state violated the constitution and that they “suddenly discovered a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification and almost everyone else in the time since” (Scalia dissenting 7).  They were apparently able to see what many great judges before them did not.  He felt they were egotistical and pretentious.  He, along with the other dissenters felt that this decision would taint the reputation of the Court since the decision was taken away from the people and not allowed to go through the democratic process of being a debate where both parties are heard.

But what does this mean for our nation? 

What does this mean for our state? 

What does this mean for my community? 

What does this mean for me? 

This Court imposed one point of view on the entire country.  Its impact will may never be fully recognized as the ripples will continue to spread.  Of great concern, as Justice Alito pointed out, was for the institute of religion.  One of the rights we have in this nation is the right to worship how we please.  By imposing this view, this right is being taken from us.  No longer are we able to refuse to perform services that are against our religion for fear of appearing “bigoted”. 

Alexander Dushku spoke at the Religious Freedom Annual Review about this life-changing Supreme Court decision.  How we respond and react to this case can make a big difference.  He suggested responding similarly to the case for/against abortion (Roe v Wade).  This case divided the country as well.  He said, religious voices decided they would not and could not remain silent, so they spoke up, refused to be intimidated, they organized, insisted on right of free speech, learned to make a case with reason, civility and even love.  Not much has changed legally.  But sides can still be fully participating citizens.  Examples were shown that even the highest and best of beliefs can refuse to be silenced.  So how does traditional marriage maintain respectability in light of the culture and law present today?  “They cheerfully, but resolutely endure indignities that will indeed be visited upon them – without bitterness, asking only for toleration, understanding, and their basic rights as Americans.  The great goodness and decency of American people will rise up and our culture and law will care out and protect enough spaces so that people of faith and their institutions who maintain traditional beliefs about marriage, family, and sexuality can participate fully in all aspects of American life.”  He felt that religious liberty could survive, if there was accommodation for both sides. 

By studying this case, I feel that I have better grounds to stand on as far as why this change in definition of what constitutes a marriage impacts me.  It’s not just because it is against my religious views.  It impacts everyone’s practice of their religion.  I have learned that I can share other views with someone who doesn’t share mine.  I must stand up for what I know to be true, but be respectful and civil to the other side as well.  I cannot retreat or be intimidated or silent.  That doesn’t mean I condone or agree with them, but I also don’t treat them as a leper.  Just as I want to protect my beliefs, and I have freedom of speech to share my views, so do they.  

DIVORCE

I have a lot of mixed feelings about divorce.  I grew up surrounded by couples who stayed together, loved each other, worked through their differences, and gave me examples of what a marriage means. 

But my brother, through various choices, ended up getting married to support his pregnant girlfriend.  Their marriage struggled from the beginning.  Fast forward 17 years, and through various incidences, the divorce was finalized.  I saw the heartache and trauma this was on the kids. 

Children who experience parental divorce are prone to a variety of academic, behavior, and emotional problems.  These challenges often persist into adulthood.

Amato, P. (Fall 2005).  The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social and emotional well-being of the next generation.  The Future of Children, 15(2), 75-96.

Once they adjusted and worked through the changes, my brother, who has custody of the kids still at home, is stronger and happier, and in a much better place than he was for those 17 years.  And so are the kids.  For them, it was a blessing. 

On the other hand, I am currently serving in the Young Women’s program, and one of my girls is going through the divorce of her parents. 

The process has been going on for more than a year.  The first 6 months the judge asked that both parents stay in the house, and when the custody switch would take place, it meant that one of them left and went and stayed somewhere else, allowing the kids to maintain roots.  But they had to sell the house as part of the divorce proceedings. 

 This girl in my class is facing many of the struggles Amato indicated.  She feels guilty spending time with one and not the other.  The stress she carries on her shoulders is evident in her face.  The whole custody thing has them spending ½ the week with one parent and the other ½ with another, which requires them changing locations on Wednesdays – a difference of 30 minutes.  This is also limiting her ability to establish roots, and her school work and social behaviors are suffering.  I don’t know what happened to the parents (it’s not my business, and I don’t want to know), but it is tearing these kids apart.  The parents are so caught up in how things are affecting them (posts on social media every day), that I don’t think they see it.  I don’t know how to help her.

I am so blessed that I don’t have to face these challenges, and my heart goes out to those that have or are currently facing this battle.  Pray!!!  And ask the Lord for guidance and help as you make these life changing decisions, because these affect many, many lives.