Taylor Monk

Mrs. Tolkan
English ERWC
September 28, 2015
The Supreme Court Got It Wrong
This country was founded on a piece of paper written about 240
years ago. We continue to use this piece of paper to maintain the law
in our nation and make only the rare alteration to it. Of course, this is
the Constitution. The Constitution is suppose to reaffirm the idea that
the country is ruled by the people, yet the Supreme Court appears to
want to change that with their recent ruling to allow gay marriage in
every state of the U.S. This is and will cause many foreseeable
problems in the future. One need only delve into Americas past about
marriage that should be an inclination on what that should be. Not to
mention the ramifications against those of a religious nature or even
just dont approve. Then theres the situation of whether or not the
ruling made was really of the people.
One should look first at the history of marriage in the United
States. Marriage was defined as a official relationship between man
and woman, as stated by both the men who founded this great country
as well as the bible, which is another resource that was taken into
consideration when forming America and claiming independence for
the British Empire. While we have had a history of making

Amendments to the Constitution, they have always stayed within the

parameters of maintaining everyones freedom without infringing
upon them, as the gay marriage ruling does. "This ruling is not about
marriage equality, it's about marriage redefinition, (Huckabee.) Also,
these Amendments were almost always passed by a majority, either
through Congress or similar channels. The gay marriage ruling was
made only by the Supreme Court; a nine person board that gets to
decide laws for the entire country. Not only that, but it was a 5 to 4
vote, meaning that one person decided for the whole country whether
or not gay marriage should be legal in every state, and there is
practically no democracy or by the people ruling in that decision.
However, this isnt the only thing that makes the decision
unconstitutional.
The ruling may have been tolerable had the possible
ramifications against so many not have been so large. This is in
regards to those religious, or any others who dont agree with the
belief that gay marriage should be allowed, at least not for the area
they live in. They say that churches better protect themselves in
from lawsuits in regards to employment criteria, facility use policies,
and mission statements. (Nasworth.) Think about it this way, if you
were Christian for example and you didnt want your children to be
exposed to homosexuality or bisexuality at such a young age, yet their
Kindergarten teacher is married to another woman (or man), what do

you do? The only possible choice is to pull them out of the system and
put them either in a private school or homeschooling, both of which
cause time and/or money. That in and of itself is restricting the
freedoms and pursuit of happiness so clearly stated in the
Constitution, thereby causing an unintentional discrimination against
religious members thats dictated by law. The next and even more
robust problem, is giving power to those who purposefully discriminate
against individuals and group that disapprove of gay marriage. The
clearest example of this is the situation last year is where the city of
Houston subpoenaed any and all sermon transcripts from churches in
the city in regards to gay marriage. Those who didnt turn them in were
held in contempt of court. This was a deliberate action to suppress a
religious establishments opinions which, neednt be said, is extremely
illegal. These sort of situations seemed to be ignored by the Supreme
Court when they made their ruling, only considering appeasing the
many when they should have been focused on delegating laws down
to the State level, but thats another can of worms.
The way the system works is there are the State governments
and the Federal government. The reason for having these two systems
is so that an area can be ruled by the majority from said area. The
Federal system is in place to oversee the entirety of the country and
make decisions, based on the input of the majority, that dont conflict
with religious beliefs. We need as a president someone who is going

to fight a court that is abusive, that has superseded their authority,

(Santorum.) That was what was stated in the most recent GOP
presidential debate in regards to the Supreme Courts gay marriage
ruling. The Supreme Court broke the system by deciding for all 50
states that gay marriage should be allowed when 13 states still didnt
agree with it, for the demographics for those states mostly disagreed
with it. That means that the minority in those states have control over
the majority on the issue, which is not the intended purpose the
system when it was founded. This shows a shut-down in law making at
the State level, forcing a law down the throats of areas that dont agree
with it. It also opens the door for similar and even more extreme
actions in the future that arent approved by the majority. In essence,
its a scary prospect for the possibility of our country no longer being
run by the public, but those who seek to run it for their own personal
gain. Weve fought so hard against foreign tyrants for our, and others,
freedoms that well so willingly give these same freedoms to domestic
tyrants?
There is practically no chance of the Supreme Court ever
retracting this now Federal law, but the mistake must be taken note of
regardless. This great nation must safeguard what little innocence it
has left, for its all being rapidly stripped from those who control it by
standing on the road and yelling with a sign in their hands. While the
Constitution is suppose to reaffirm the freedoms we deserve, the

Supreme Court seems bent on taking those freedoms away from a

supposed minority so that an even smaller minority can have a few
more.

Work Cited
Ball, Molly. "How Gay Marriage Became a Constitutional Right." The
Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 01 July 2015. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.
"How the Supreme Court Decided on a Constitutional Right to Samesex Marriage." Mashable. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.
"Why Supreme Court Got It Wrong - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News
Network, n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

"14 Reasons the Supreme Court Got It Wrong on Gay

Marriage." Charisma News. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.
Jeffress, Pastor Robert. "Gay Marriage: Why Supreme Court Got It
Wrong | Fox News." Fox News. FOX News Network, 26 June 2015. Web.
25 Sept. 2015.
"Donnie McClurkin Weighs In On Same-Sex Marriage
Ruling."MadameNoire RSS. N.p., 30 June 2015. Web. 25 Sept. 2015
Garcia, Ahiza. "Mike Huckabee: I Will Not Accept Gay Marriage Ruling
By Imperial Court." TPM. N.p., 26 June 2015. Web. 01 Oct. 2015.
"How Will the Supreme Court Gay Marriage Decision Affect Religious
Freedom?" Christian Post. N.p., 22 June 2015. Web. 01 Oct. 2015.
"GOP Candidates Clash Over Same-Sex Marriage, Religion, And Kim
Davis." BuzzFeed. N.p., 16 Sept. 2015. Web. 01 Oct. 2015.