While Nepal is in ruins and while Baltimore is burning, the SCOTUS has been hearing oral arugments this morning in the case Obergefell v. Hodges, "which is consolidated with three other cases, on the questions of whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires that states grant and/or recognize same-sex marriages."
I was reading through the transcripts of the first half of oral arguments and found an exchange which every Pastor or Minister better pay attention to. The link to the website with all the transcripts and audio of the oral arguments from today is below.
JUSTICE SCALIA: But but right to thisday, we have never held that there is a constitutional right for these two people to marry, and the minister is to the extent he's conducting a civil marriage, he's an instrument of the State.
I don't see how you could possibly allow that minister to say, I will only marry a man and a woman. I will not marry two men. Which means you - you would - you could - you could have ministers who who conduct real marriages that that are civilly enforceable at the National Cathedral, but not at St. Matthews downtown, because that minister refuses to marry two men, and therefore, cannot be given the State power to make a real State marriage. I don't see any any answer to that. I really don't.
JUSTICE SCALIA: They are laws. They are not constitutional requirements. That was the whole point of my question.
If you let the States do it, you can make an exception. The State can say, yes, two men can marry, but but ministers who do not believe in same sex marriage will still be authorized to conduct marriages on behalf of the State.
You can't do that once it is a constitutional proscription.
MS. BONAUTO: I think if we're talking about a government individual, a clerk, a judge, who's empowered to authorize marriage, that is a different matter that they are going to have to follow through, unless, again, a State decides to make some exceptions. In Connecticut, after the court permitted marriage, it did actually pass a law to do deal with implementation issues, including these kinds of liberty issues.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Because it was a State law. That's my whole my point.
If it's a State law, you can make those exceptions. But if it's a constitutional requirement, I don't see how you can. And every State allows ministers to marry people, and their marriages are effective under State law. That will not be the case if, indeed, we hold, as a constitutional matter, that the State must marry two men.
So here the conservative Justices are stating that if SCOTUS rules that SSM's are a Constitutional right, every Pastor or Minister will be forced to officiate a SSM, regardless of religious beliefs, because it's a Constitutional requirement.
Of course, the liberal Justices and the petitioners claim religious freedoms will always be honored and no one will be forced to violate their religious beliefs.
Tell that to the bakeries and other businesses which have been fined and have had to close their business because of lawsuits. I don't believe for one NY minute that should SSM become a Constitutional right that activists will sit back and allow Pastors or Ministers to refuse to officiate SSM's.
There's more...
The Justices are now hearing from US Solicitor General Verrilli, who represents the obama administration and is representing the petitioners.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel, I'd like to follow up in a line of questioning that Justice Scalia started. We have a concession from your friend that clergy will not be required to perform samesex marriage, but there are going to be harder questions.
Would a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing to samesex couples?
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case,
the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So
would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed samesex marriage?
GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but
it's certainly going to be an issue I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.
The petitioners have admitted that tax-exempt status' will be an issue if SSM becomes a Constitutional right! And this won't only apply to Christian colleges. This will branch to churches which refuse to recognize SSM's.
SCOTUS Blog is predicting a 5-4 ruling in favor of SSM.
SCOTUSBlog Source Link
Hybrid Mode
