Well, Professor Purvis, you and your gay allies have finally won.
You relentlessly promoted your gay agenda and your gay lifestyle and now the sacred institution of holy matrimony is sullied beyond redemption.
As the greatest Supreme Court Justice in history, Antonin Scalia, predicted in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, the "law-profession culture" led the weak thinkers on the Supreme Court to "largely sign on to the so-called homosexual agenda," which has now "eliminat[ed] the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."
Justice Scalia so presciently observed in Lawrence, "Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned." And now Justice Scalia's dark vision has come to pass.
After the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, men may now marry men; women may marry women; and as Scalia warned us, polygamy, incest, bestiality, dogs and cats, living together, are sure to follow. This looming horror is the product of lawyers and others like you, Professor Purvis, who have forgotten this vitally important eternal truth: the moral rules that we derive from God are not subject to repeal or amendment by mankind.
Your Homosexual Alliance may have won the battle, but God's people will not cease defying you until we have won the war! I will take my sign from the majority opinion itself in the Obergefell decision, which acknowledged:
"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned."
I'm tired to being called a bigot by people who are doing Satan's work. I know I'm right because I am obeying God, and even in his apostasy, Justice Kennedy recognized this. We of the One True Faith will never accept that homosexuals are entitled to any rights at all.
--Robert Jones, Greenville, South Carolina
You wound me, Mr. Jones.
Simply because you hate an entire class of people based on your irrational belief in a supernational being, I would not call you a bigot.
Wait--yes I would. You are a bigot.
A group of people have characteristics that offend the values you derive from your religious beliefs, and on this basis you wish to deprive them of the rights that you and others possess. The notion that "God's law" is somehow superior in authority to human laws reflects a fundamental misconception about self-government and the rule of law.
The very reason that we can't put to a vote whether your religious beliefs are insane is the same reason that you can't cite your religious beliefs as a justification for harming non-heterosexual people simply because you believe it is ordained by God: the Constitution forbids both of those things.
Some, if not many, of the people who enacted the Constitution were themselves bigots, but the document that they gave the force of supreme law removes certain fundamental rights from majoritarian decision making, and the people who adopted the 14th Amendment, many of them undoubtedly bigots, stated a rule that limits the circumstances in which different people's fundamental rights may be enforced differently.
Of course, how can I expect you, Mr. Jones, to understand what a constitutional system under the rule of law means when more than one Supreme Court justice seem not to understand it? Or is it simply that they wish their political values to be effectuated, regardless of whether the Constitution prohibits it.
Justice Scalia seems to argue that if the government can't make homosexuality or homosexual conduct illegal, on the grounds that it offends the religious values of the majority, then it will not be possible to make any conduct illegal on that basis. And if we can't cite our religious beliefs as a guide to lawmaking, then there are no values and nothing can be illegal. It once astonished me that a person sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States could think like this.
The legislature chooses what values will have the force of law, and values based on religious beliefs are as legitimate as any other values based on any other moral system. But the legislature may not actually select values forbidden by the Constitution.
Thus, if the legislature selects the value that African-Americans may not marry white Americans, because the legislature has an utmost, sincere conviction that God designated African-Americans with the "mark of Cain" to identify them as inferior to whites, the Constitution does not permit that legislature to give their religious value the force of law.
And if a hypothetical Supreme Court justice said that as a consequence of the judicial rejection of this legislative religious value, it would thereafter be legal for adults to have sexual intercourse with five-year-old children, that justice would either evil, stupid, or insane.
Law prohibiting sexual intercourse between adults and children are premised on the value that harm to children should be avoided, and the people who violate such laws are behaving wrongfully because their specific actions harm children.
As the federal courts have repeatedly held, after lengthy, thoughtful, and careful examination, no objectively identifiable harm occurs when two adults of the same gender have a sexual or marital relationship.
Therefore, no justification, let alone a compelling one, permits the government to deny them their fundamental rights to do so.