Marriage and Law

In June 2015 The Supreme Court ruled to legalize same sex marriage.  Have you ever had to read court ruling document?  It’s not easy at all, however, it was interesting.  The document contained not only the ruling, and the reasoning behind the ruling, but also statements from the Justices who dissented as well. 

Both the ruling and Justice Roberts’ dissent provide their own view of what marriage is meant for.  In the ruling document they state that the Supreme judicial court of Massachusetts explained, that marriage “fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.”

In opposition of that Justice Roberts argues that marriage “arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditioned of a lifelong relationship.” 

In a speech given by Elder Russell M Nelson says, “Male and female are created for what they can do and become, together. It takes a man and a woman to bring a child into the world. Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable. Men and women are distinct and complementary. Children deserve a chance to grow up with both a mom and a dad.”

If you compare how the court ruling and Justice Roberts both define what marriage for to what Elder Nelson says you can see that Justice Roberts is more in line with what we are taught in the gospel.

That being said, I believe Justice Roberts may not have necessarily disagreed with the ruling because he is opposed to same sex marriage.  I believe he disagreed with it because the court was making a law instead of upholding the law.  At beginning of Justice Roberts dissent he states, “judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.  The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force nor will but merely judgment.’” 

However, with their court ruling they are overriding the existing law and saying that the law is different from what the people voted for.  Therefore, the judges are saying what the law should be.

You can read more about the ruling here, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf.