What about marriage? The Court’s imposition on the entire country of the concept of “same-sex marriage” is, of course, more recent—2015. It was handed down over the vehement (and eloquent) dissenting judgments of Justices Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts. Once again, Scalia’s successor—assuming that Trump honors his commitment to appoint true Scalia-style constitutionalists—should provide a fourth vote aimed at reversing this outrageous abuse of judicial power. And then we will be one vacancy away from making the imposition on the states of “same-sex marriage” a footnote to the history of the Supreme Court’s usurpations in the cause of advancing liberal secularist ideology.So this is about the integrity of the Constitution? Sure. What this is really all about is that the Catholic Church does not approve of gay people. Robert George is presumably a member of Opus Dei. George has no objectivity. He seeks to impose the teachings of the Catholic Church — no matter how idiotic — on everyone by force of law. Just note how George finds it necessary to put same-sex marriage in defensive quotes because the Church doesn't recognize these perfectly lawful marriages.
According to the Church, gay people are “objectively disordered.” That nonsense was conjured up by some eunuch at the Vatican whose erudition is limited to theology, not social or medical science. It all stems from a slavish devotion to ancient chronicles of dubious provenance. Those texts are based on a culture and society that no longer exists. According to scholars like Mary Beard, in ancient Greece and Rome, homosexual acts with young slave boys were the hobby of the heterosexual elites. That is the conduct that is addressed and rightly proscribed. There was no understanding of sexual orientation.
There is nothing odd—or even unusual—about the Supreme Court reversing its own bad decisions, even in constitutional cases. It has happened dozens of times in our nation’s history. Most famously, Brown v. Board of Education—the great school desegregation case of 1954—reversed the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson. The Plessy case had upheld state-sponsored or mandated segregation on the “separate but equal” theory.Earlier in the same piece, George refers to equal protection and due process as the “pretext” of justices who “have not only personally embraced the dogmas of liberal secularism, but have adopted the idea that the Constitution is a 'living document' whose 'life' is breathed into it by the judges themselves—so long as the judges are reliable progressives who will put the policies of the nation 'on the right side of history.'” George does not appreciate the supreme inconsistency — the outrageous hypocrisy — of subsequently referencing Brown v. Board of Education which is based upon a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Were we to take Scalia's originalism theory seriously (George supposedly does) its logical conclusion would have been to reject the ruling in Brown. Scalia used to refer to it as “the bloody shirt of Brown” because he had no answer for the conflicts unless you think that the framers (many of whom were slave holders) had desegregated schools in mind or that the authors of the 14th Amendment were champions of school integration even though they never mention it in the amendment.
Furthermore, Brown demonstrates how values and society evolves and how the Court recognizes those changes in culture. More importantly Brown reverses an injustice. Otherwise, the Court has ruled according to the doctrine of stare decisis honoring precedent because the alternative is instability and uncertainty. The only injustice created by Obergefell is to the ego of some pampered prelate.
Brown represents progress. Reversing Obergefell would not only represent regression but it would insult the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. As long is we are addressing original intent it was the absence of religion in jurisprudence.
The insidiousness of Robert George is the uncertainty that he tries to produce. He seeks to impose fear on the gay community because he does not approve of gay people. It is the kind of uncertainty that the doctrine of stare decisis is designed to prevent. Same-sex marriage was settled by Obergefell. No one is any the worse for the ruling.