SCOTUS blows a gasket over marriage equality

I feel compelled to respond to some of the incredibly obtuse nonsense contained in the dissents of the four members of the SCOTUS after the decision affirming the right to marriage equality was announced this morning.  These opinions – from Chief Justice Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito – all argue from a particular perspective; the “tradition” of marriage in society.  But because marriage – at least in modern western societies – is inextricably bound to religion.   SCOTUS opinions that are grounded in religious traditions and notions of marriage almost inevitably leads to a muddled and incoherent mess.

From Roberts, this particularly puzzling blast; “[F]or the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.”  Huh? John, who else would procreation occur between?  Can a man and woman not particularly interested in procreating have a traditional marriage?  How about a man and woman who can’t procreate?

But more than these obvious arguments is this essential element; to the extent that marriage as it is currently codified into law creates an advantage for the participants, the equal protection clause requires that the same advantage be available to all Americans.  And not to just all Americans seeking to procreate or pursue a lifetime relationship with someone of the opposite sex, religious tradition notwithstanding.  It begs the very question of why the state have “marriage laws” to begin with.

But it isn’t Roberts who leads the SCOTUS train off the rails; Scalia once again puts his full, meager intelligence on view with his snarling and sneering opinion.  His argument seems to rest on the idea that the 14^th amendment is somehow violated by this simple notion.  For reference, here is what seems to be the relevant section:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As marriage laws dictate these privileges, this seems pretty clear to me.  Scalia contends that the 5 affirming justices have “discovered a fundamental right overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification.”  But this is disingenuous in the extreme if it is referring to the specifics of same sex marriage.  It is true this isn’t addressed; neither is intercontinental airline traffic or laws governing the internet.  Somehow we find meaning there in spite of these omissions.  So this becomes nothing more than a hissy-fit because Antonin as a Catholic is opposed to the idea – perhaps even repulsed by the idea.  But of course his religiously based objections are irrelevant and he should know it.

Alito also smears the constitution with a generous extra heaping helping of religiosity that isn’t and shouldn’t be there.  His opinion states; “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage.”  Sam seems to have confused the constitution with the bible because as far as I know this question isn’t addressed.  He goes on to warn ominously, “By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas”, a somewhat overwrought and sweeping statement and one that could easily be applied by a 19^th century segregationist.  “Traditional ideas” are just that, and should not have the weight of law.

But Clarence Thomas wins the prize for the most tortured logic on display with a barely coherent rant about how slaves did not lose their dignity because the government allowed them to be slaves, as if one’s dignity is the sole criterion by which to judge.  He opines that, “[R]eceiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of ‘liberty’” a statement completely devoid of logic, as not being allowed a benefit conferred on one’s fellow citizens certainly seems to qualify as a diminution of liberty to me.

It seems clear that once again the conservative SCOTUS justices have allowed their religious beliefs to completely infiltrate their understanding of constitutional law and – moreover seem content to rest fundamental decision consciously on that foundation, something that truly would be anathema to the founders.  I pains people to come to the realization that, while basic Christian beliefs are incorporated into laws of this country – thou shalt not kill, steal, etc. – they do not form the font from which all that is right flows.   As the country’s demographics continue to evolve the recognition of this simple fact by our legislators and politicians will become ever more important.  As will reconstituting the current SCOTUS.