During an interview with the local Good Morning Dallas television program, the megachurch pastor told the interviewer, … “This is not going to be re-litigated by the Supreme Court,” he said. “That is the law of the land, and I wish it were different, but it's not different, and actually I had to argue against some hard-right Catholics and evangelicals who wanted Mr. Trump to make that a campaign issue. I said, 'Guys, forget it. It's over. We need to go on to other things like protecting the unborn.'”I am no fan of Jefress but he is more astute than Eschliman who goes on to write:
Actually, Trump repeatedly made the claim that his Supreme Court picks would take up and defend biblical marriage. It's also a key component of the Republican Party's platform.Trump has already said that Obergefell v. Hodges settled the issue. More importantly, the Supreme Court cannot just “take up” same-sex marriage. A new case has to make its way through the courts. Someone wishing to overturn Obergefell is going to have to have Article III standing. That means they will be required to demonstrate an actual injury due to same-sex marriage and establish a causal relationship between same-sex marriage and the injury.
Jeffress doesn't hold any official title with the Trump administration and is playing no role in the Presidential Transition Team, so his comments don't carry tremendous weight. But, for evangelicals who were skeptical, or even opposed to the president-elect's campaign, they signal a potentially disastrous betrayal even before Inauguration Day.
Furthermore, American law operates under the doctrine of stare decisis which means that prior decisions are supposed to be respected in order to maintain reliability and stability. The Supreme Court reverses itself to eliminate harm by addressing an injustice. A good example of this is Bowers v. Hardwick which was reversed by Lawrence v. Texas.
In Bowers (1986) the Court ruled that a Georgia anti-sodomy statute was constitutional. While the Georgia law covered heterosexual and homosexual sex acts, the Court was abundantly clear that the underlying issue was homosexuality and their disdain for it.
In Lawrence (2002) the Court determined that the prior ruling was based on homophobia. Bowers was overturned. Kennedy wrote: (for the majority) “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.” Similarly, Loving v. Virginia overturned the 1883 case, Pace v. Alabama in order to correct an injustice.
Who, exactly, is the victim of an injustice due to same-sex marriage? Or is it just their disapproval of gay people due to scripture?
Eschliman goes on to conclude:
They also signal perhaps some misunderstanding on the part of Jeffress as to how American self-governance works. Either way, some prayers for the president-elect, for those around him, and for Jeffress are definitely in order.Sorry Bob but when it comes to confusion you have a veritable monopoly.