The Supreme Court Decision on Obergefell Et Al v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, Et Al; Same Sex Marriage

Yesterday’s decision to mandate equality in marriage throughout the fifty states opens up Pandora’s Box. This decision to promote an agenda has unforeseen consequences that it did not consider in its haste. The decision says that “the first premise of this court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy” (found on page 3 of the decision). It is essentially saying that marriage is a personal choice protected by individual autonomy. This wording would make incestuous marriage legal as it is individual choice and is protected by the autonomy of the people involved. It also would make the law against polygamy unconstitutional due to the court’s decree making it an individual autonomous decision.

But then the same decision contradicts itself by saying “the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals” (also found on page 3).

Oops! They just said it was a determination of self-rule without influence from the government, and the government has to treat all equally, but now discriminates against anything but a two person union. This decision, which claims to remove discrimination in marriage, in fact is including one group into accepted practices while discriminating against another by excluding polygamy. This in itself makes the decision on the constitutionality of state laws, is unconstitutional itself as it is violating the precedents it quotes supporting the decision.

Personally, I choose to let the issue of marriage between anything other than one man and one woman be left between those people and God. The decision did assure that churches that follow Biblical teachings were protected from this decision as demonstrated on page 5 of the decision where it states “the First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths” (page 5 of the decision).

You can read the decision in its original form at:  In doing so, you can see for yourself without relying on the inferred bias that may be in any other report on the issue.


About The Rural Iowegian

I am the Rural Iowegian of a published author and an award winning photographer. I use this space to speak my mind. God Bless.
This entry was posted in Nourishment For The Soul, Soap Box, Writing. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s