The whole world knows, or will soon enough, that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, today, by a bare 5-4 majority, that the U.S. Constitution compels every state to redefine marriage to include so-called "same-sex marriage."
A lot of folks are saying anodyne things like this from Sen. Lindsey Graham:
I am a proud defender of traditional marriage and believe the people of each state should have the right to determine their marriage laws. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, and I will respect the Court’s decision.
Well, I for one do not respect this decision.
I read it, and the dissents, and it is an embarrassing mess. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but based on this monstrosity, constitutional lawyers are way overrated. I first labeled this ruling "trash," but went back and recast that sentence. Trash denotes a lack of worth, which is what I meant; but trash often is found to have value nonetheless; and if not, is mainly noxious, but otherwise, not all that harmful. This decision will cause terrible harm.
No, I do not respect this ruling. It is completely and utterly undeserving of respect.
Will I obey it? Well, let's see...
-- I can assure you that I will never officiate at any marriage that is not fully in accord with the Catholic Faith. No same-sex marriages from me, anytime.
-- The State of Ohio will now be coerced into recognizing "same sex marriage," and inasmuch as I am a citizen of Ohio, I'm being dragooned into that. Now and always, I withhold my approval to that lie. The State of Ohio, however unwillingly it cooperates with this, does not speak for me.
-- If someone rushes up to tell me that he or she is "married," and points to a spouse of the same sex, I think being polite and friendly is a good policy; but if you press me to find out if I agree, don't be surprised by my candor.
-- And if anyone tries to get me to tip my hat, rhetorically, to the grandeur of the law, or the dignity of the courts, or some such blather, I will try to avoid laughing in your face, but I may fail to restrain myself.
This is, in the words of a Supreme Court justice of an another era, "an exercise of raw judicial power." It will create great mischief. Future generations will be embarrassed by it.
Update, 2 pm, 6/26/15...
A commenter on Father Z's blog posted this from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith:
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection. (Emphasis added.)