The United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges ruled same-sex marriages are constitutional. This decision opened the floodgates to those seeking special protections from supposed discrimination. Since then there have been a host of attempts, with some successes, to pass state or local laws protecting the rights of lesbians, homosexuals, transgender people, etc., from discrimination.
Whenever this happens it has never been enacted by a vote of the electorate. Typically, a legislative body or judicial decree imposes such ordinances. The HERO ordinance in Houston is a case in point.
Houston’s lesbian mayor Annise Parker led the city council to adopt the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance. It allowed transgender women, men who believe they are women, to use the women’s restroom if they wanted to. When several local pastors demanded the ordinance be put to a referendum of registered voters, Mayor Parker challenged their demand in court. The LGBT community knows they have a better chance in a court of appeal than the court of public opinion.
The Texas Supreme Court ordered Houston to put the issue on the ballot and it was resoundingly defeated. In fact, though LGBT activists claim statistically most Americans approve of their lifestyles, there has not been an instance to my knowledge of any popular vote for special protections for those in the LGBT community.
When and where they have been able, those who begged for tolerance for their views have exercised extreme intolerance of those who disagree with their immorality. Suing those who would not bake them a cake, or demanding others to issue them a marriage license, and more.
Some state legislatures have adopted laws to protect their constituents from being forced to violate their conscience in conflicting matters of faith. But these may prove to be stopgap measures if challenged constitutionally.
Whenever the Supreme Court abuses its discretion it does not necessarily have the last say. The people can lobby congress to invoke the amendment process under Article V. If two-thirds of each house of Congress vote to amend the constitution, such amendment must be submitted to the state legislatures and becomes law when three-fourths of the states, 38, ratify it.
If an amendment worded, “Marriage in the United States of America will be defined as between one natural man and one natural woman, and no other marriage will be recognized legally,” will void Obergefell v. Hodges, and make marriage of one man to one woman the law of the land.
Irish statesman Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The psalmist put it this way, “Like a trampled spring and a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked,” Proverbs 25:26.
With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch conservative, the future of marriage is further imperiled by a Court made more liberal under a successful Obama nomination. A well-worded marriage amendment is needed now more than ever. Our course is clear.