The Battle Goes On - Eric Metaxas
LISTEN NOW | DOWNLOAD
Yesterday, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court, as expected, overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.
At the same time the Court declined to rule on California’s Proposition 8, citing what lawyers call a “lack of standing.”
Here's the bottom line: Same-sex marriage is not the law of the land. The Supreme Court did not issue a Roe v. Wade type of decision for gay marriage. Yes, DOMA is gone. But same-sex marriage in California is still up in the air, and everywhere else the battle goes on.
The DOMA decision, U.S. v. Windsor, involved the estate of a woman who left everything to her same-sex spouse, a marriage recognized by the state of New York. The surviving spouse was barred from claiming the federal estate tax exemption by Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the District and Appeals Court’s rulings that DOMA was unconstitutional.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the “history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power,” was “the essence” of DOMA.
Its “avowed purpose,” he said, was to “impose” a “disadvantage,” “separate status” and “stigma” on those who enter into “lawful” marriages recognized by the states they live in.
For long-time BreakPoint listeners, Kennedy’s reasoning may bring to mind his opinions in Romer v. Evans. There, he opined that Colorado’s exclusion of sexual orientation from civil rights protection was the product of “animus.” To which I recall Chuck Colson retorting, in essence, “hogwash.” I would use a stronger word--cover your ears--balderdash. There. I've said it.
At any rate, Kennedy cited his opinion in Romer in singling out what he deemed DOMA’s “discrimination of an unusual character.” Thus, for Kennedy, Section 3 of DOMA serves no “legitimate purpose” that compensates for the way it “disparages” the plaintiff’s “personhood and dignity,” and is, according to him, unconstitutional.
Now this is important: Section 2 of DOMA was not addressed in this decision. Section 2 states that “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect” to same-sex marriages performed outside of their jurisdiction. That means that states may still refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
However, as of today, “more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and burdens linked to marriage status” become equally applicable to same-sex married couples.
That much is clear. What is far from clear is the fate of Proposition 8. The Supreme Court, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, held that the people defending Proposition 8 lacked “standing” to appeal the District Court ruling. Justice Roberts wrote that, unlike the plaintiffs or the state of California, they weren’t seeking “a remedy for a personal and tangible harm.”
Thus, in essence, the District Court’s pro-gay marriage ruling stands. But it's quite possible that it only applies to the original parties in the case. So, when it comes to Proposition 8, there is a lot of litigation and a lot of politicking yet to come.
As I said the Supreme Court’s rulings mean the battle for marriage goes on. And what that means for the Church will be the subject of tomorrow’s BreakPoint broadcast with John Stonestreet.
Resources:
The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview | Issues | June 26, 2013
The Supreme Court, Marriage, and Us
John Stonestreet | The Point Radio | June 26, 2013
Don't Try the Same Marriage Debate Again
Nathan Hitchin | Worldviewchurch.org | June 26, 2013
Worldview Church Marriage Debate Issue (especially for pastors)
The Marriage Debate, "Two-Minute" Warning
Interview with Ryan Anderson | ColsonCenter.org | May 2, 2013
Supreme Court's Refusal to Redefine Marriage Nationwide Allows American People to Consider Consequences of Redefinition
Anthony Perkins | Family Research Council | June 26, 2013
Eric Teetsel (Manhattan Declaration) and Ryan Anderson at the New York Times
Anderson and Teetsel | NYT Live-Dashboard | June 26, 2013
How Should Same-Sex Marriage Change the Church’s Witness?
Russell Moore | Christianity.com | June 26, 2013
'Waiting for the Other Shoe': The Supreme Court Rules on Same-Sex Marriage
Albert Mohler | Religion Today | June 26, 2013
Summit Ministries Response: The Supreme Court’s Decisions on Marriage
What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense
Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, Robert George | Encounter Books | December 2012
| June 27, 2013 | ||||||
| The Supremes and Marriage | ||||||
| The Battle Goes On | ||||||
| Eric Metaxas | ||||||
Okay, you’ve seen the news, you’ve listened to the talking heads: But what exactly did the Supreme Court’s rulings mean for marriage? Stay tuned to BreakPoint. Yesterday, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court, as expected, overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.At the same time the Court declined to rule on California’s Proposition 8, citing what lawyers call a “lack of standing.” Here's the bottom line: Same-sex marriage is not the law of the land. The Supreme Court did not issue a Roe v. Wade type of decision for gay marriage. Yes, DOMA is gone. But same-sex marriage in California is still up in the air, and everywhere else the battle goes on. The DOMA decision, U.S. v. Windsor, involved the estate of a woman who left everything to her same-sex spouse, a marriage recognized by the state of New York. The surviving spouse was barred from claiming the federal estate tax exemption by Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the District and Appeals Court’s rulings that DOMA was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the “history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power,” was “the essence” of DOMA.  Its “avowed purpose,” he said, was to “impose” a “disadvantage,” “separate status” and “stigma” on those who enter into “lawful” marriages recognized by the states they live in.For long-time BreakPoint listeners, Kennedy’s reasoning may bring to mind his opinions in Romer v. Evans. There, he opined that Colorado’s exclusion of sexual orientation from civil rights protection was the product of “animus.” To which I recall Chuck Colson retorting, in essence, “hogwash.” I would use a stronger word--cover your ears--balderdash. There, I've said it. At any rate, Kennedy cited his opinion in Romer in singling out what he deemed DOMA’s “discrimination of an unusual character.” Thus, for Kennedy, Section 3 of DOMA serves no “legitimate purpose” that compensates for the way it “disparages” the plaintiff’s “personhood and dignity,” and is, according to him, unconstitutional. Now this is important: Section 2 of DOMA was not addressed in this decision. Section 2 states that “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect” to same-sex marriages performed outside of their jurisdiction. That means that states may still refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. However, as of today, “more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and burdens linked to marriage status” become equally applicable to same-sex married couples.  That much is clear. What is far from clear is the fate of Proposition 8. The Supreme Court, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, held that the people defending Proposition 8 lacked “standing” to appeal the District Court ruling. Justice Roberts wrote that, unlike the plaintiffs or the state of California, they weren’t seeking “a remedy for a personal and tangible harm.”Thus, in essence, the District Court’s pro-gay marriage ruling stands. But it's quite possible that it only applies to the original parties in the case. So, when it comes to Proposition 8, there is a lot of litigation and a lot of politicking yet to come. As I said, the Supreme Court’s rulings mean the battle for marriage goes on. And what that means for the Church will be the subject of tomorrow’s BreakPoint broadcast with John Stonestreet. Please come to BreakPoint.org for all kinds of great resources and articles on yesterday’s decisions. |
| NEXT STEPS | |
 |
More on This Topic Gather more information on today's Daily BreakPoint by visitingwww.breakpoint.org.  |
| Next Steps |
| The Supreme Court’s decisions are disappointing, but, as Eric says, there is a way forward. In fact this might be the best time to make a strong case on the state level for God’s definition of marriage, especially in your church. Here are some things you can do: - Take Heart. Explain to others that the marriage debate is alive and well, especially at the state level. - Talk to your pastor, and link him to pastoral resources we’ve provided below. He'll probably be saying something about the decisions this Sunday. - Glance over all the links; see what Christian leaders are saying so that you can be ready to answer your friends and neighborswhen they question you about these issues. - And finally, remember that as Christians we know that the victory is already ours in Christ, and while the everyday battles may not go our way, the war has already been won. Tune in Friday morning to another BreakPoint Commentary by John Stonestreet on the Supreme Court decisions. |
| Related Topics At the Colson Center:
Issues - The Supreme Court Rules on Marriage CasesThe Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview | Issues | June 26, 2013 Worldview Church Marriage Debate Issue (especially for pastors) The Marriage Debate, "Two-Minute" Warning Interview with Ryan Anderson | ColsonCenter.org | May 2, 2013 Articles and Posts
Supreme Court's Refusal to Redefine Marriage Nationwide Allows American People to Consider Consequences of Redefinition
Anthony Perkins | Family Research Council | June 26, 2013 Eric Teetsel (Manhattan Declaration) and Ryan Anderson at the New York Times Anderson and Teetsel | NYT Live-Dashboard | June 26, 2013 How Should Same-Sex Marriage Change the Church’s Witness? Russell Moore | Christianity.com | June 26, 2013 'Waiting for the Other Shoe': The Supreme Court Rules on Same-Sex Marriage Albert Mohler | Religion Today | June 26, 2013 Books: Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, Robert George | Encounter Books | December 2012 |
| June 27, 2013 | ||||||
| The Supremes and Marriage | ||||||
| The Battle Goes On | ||||||
| Eric Metaxas | ||||||
Okay, you’ve seen the news, you’ve listened to the talking heads: But what exactly did the Supreme Court’s rulings mean for marriage? Stay tuned to BreakPoint. Yesterday, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court, as expected, overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.At the same time the Court declined to rule on California’s Proposition 8, citing what lawyers call a “lack of standing.” Here's the bottom line: Same-sex marriage is not the law of the land. The Supreme Court did not issue a Roe v. Wade type of decision for gay marriage. Yes, DOMA is gone. But same-sex marriage in California is still up in the air, and everywhere else the battle goes on. The DOMA decision, U.S. v. Windsor, involved the estate of a woman who left everything to her same-sex spouse, a marriage recognized by the state of New York. The surviving spouse was barred from claiming the federal estate tax exemption by Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the District and Appeals Court’s rulings that DOMA was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the “history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power,” was “the essence” of DOMA. Its “avowed purpose,” he said, was to “impose” a “disadvantage,” “separate status” and “stigma” on those who enter into “lawful” marriages recognized by the states they live in.For long-time BreakPoint listeners, Kennedy’s reasoning may bring to mind his opinions in Romer v. Evans. There, he opined that Colorado’s exclusion of sexual orientation from civil rights protection was the product of “animus.” To which I recall Chuck Colson retorting, in essence, “hogwash.” I would use a stronger word--cover your ears--balderdash. There, I've said it. At any rate, Kennedy cited his opinion in Romer in singling out what he deemed DOMA’s “discrimination of an unusual character.” Thus, for Kennedy, Section 3 of DOMA serves no “legitimate purpose” that compensates for the way it “disparages” the plaintiff’s “personhood and dignity,” and is, according to him, unconstitutional. Now this is important: Section 2 of DOMA was not addressed in this decision. Section 2 states that “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect” to same-sex marriages performed outside of their jurisdiction. That means that states may still refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. However, as of today, “more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and burdens linked to marriage status” become equally applicable to same-sex married couples. That much is clear. What is far from clear is the fate of Proposition 8. The Supreme Court, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, held that the people defending Proposition 8 lacked “standing” to appeal the District Court ruling. Justice Roberts wrote that, unlike the plaintiffs or the state of California, they weren’t seeking “a remedy for a personal and tangible harm.”Thus, in essence, the District Court’s pro-gay marriage ruling stands. But it's quite possible that it only applies to the original parties in the case. So, when it comes to Proposition 8, there is a lot of litigation and a lot of politicking yet to come. As I said, the Supreme Court’s rulings mean the battle for marriage goes on. And what that means for the Church will be the subject of tomorrow’s BreakPoint broadcast with John Stonestreet. Please come to BreakPoint.org for all kinds of great resources and articles on yesterday’s decisions. |
| NEXT STEPS | |
|
More on This Topic Gather more information on today's Daily BreakPoint by visitingwww.breakpoint.org. |
| Next Steps |
| The Supreme Court’s decisions are disappointing, but, as Eric says, there is a way forward. In fact this might be the best time to make a strong case on the state level for God’s definition of marriage, especially in your church. Here are some things you can do: - Take Heart. Explain to others that the marriage debate is alive and well, especially at the state level. - Talk to your pastor, and link him to pastoral resources we’ve provided below. He'll probably be saying something about the decisions this Sunday. - Glance over all the links; see what Christian leaders are saying so that you can be ready to answer your friends and neighborswhen they question you about these issues. - And finally, remember that as Christians we know that the victory is already ours in Christ, and while the everyday battles may not go our way, the war has already been won. Tune in Friday morning to another BreakPoint Commentary by John Stonestreet on the Supreme Court decisions. |
| Related Topics At the Colson Center:
Issues - The Supreme Court Rules on Marriage CasesThe Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview | Issues | June 26, 2013 Worldview Church Marriage Debate Issue (especially for pastors) The Marriage Debate, "Two-Minute" Warning Interview with Ryan Anderson | ColsonCenter.org | May 2, 2013 Articles and Posts
Supreme Court's Refusal to Redefine Marriage Nationwide Allows American People to Consider Consequences of Redefinition
Anthony Perkins | Family Research Council | June 26, 2013 Eric Teetsel (Manhattan Declaration) and Ryan Anderson at the New York Times Anderson and Teetsel | NYT Live-Dashboard | June 26, 2013 How Should Same-Sex Marriage Change the Church’s Witness? Russell Moore | Christianity.com | June 26, 2013 'Waiting for the Other Shoe': The Supreme Court Rules on Same-Sex Marriage Albert Mohler | Religion Today | June 26, 2013 Books: Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, Robert George | Encounter Books | December 2012 |