Because it was done outside the proper jurisdiction of Congress and with absolutely no regard for religious liberty as protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution, Obergefell v. Hodges essentially stripped Bible-believing Christians of their right to religious autonomy, and replaced it with mandatory adherence to the doctrines of LGBTQP – the P stands for pedophilia, by the way.
Commenting on the persecution faced by Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Ky., clerk who notoriously refused to grant a marriage license to two men who wanted to get "married" – this incident is what led to the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges – Thomas noted that millions of other Christians just like her can now be treated in similar kind without consequence because of the inherently flawed nature of the Obergefell decision.
"Davis may have been one of the first victims of this Court's cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last," Thomas warned. "Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws."
Religious liberty trumps the "right" to "marry" someone of the same sex
For those unfamiliar with the case, Davis was found to be in contempt of court and was subsequently forced to spend five days in jail, all for refusing, based on her formerly constitutionally protected Christian beliefs, to issue a marriage license to two men. Davis lost a subsequent lawsuit and appealed it, only to have the Supreme Court refuse to take a second look at it.
While Thomas indicated that he concurs in the denial of certiorari, concluding that Davis' petition "implicates important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell, but it does not cleanly present them," he still contends that Congress should have passed its own same-sex marriage law, which necessarily would have included vital protections for religious freedom that are lacking from the Obergefell decision.
"It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law," Thomas stated. "But it is quite another when the Court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch."
Many on the left are already decrying these statements by Thomas as "evidence" that the Supreme Court under President Trump is trying to abolish same-sex marriage, which is not the case. It is a much more nuanced situation than that, as Thomas is merely pointing out that Obergefell as it currently stands is a serious affront to religious liberty, and one that is sure to have serious long-term ramifications if not addressed or amended in some way.
"Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals," Thomas further added. "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell's language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminsh[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"
"Since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy," he added.
For an even deeper analysis, check out Tyler O'Neil's take at PJ Media.
You can also keep up with the latest LGBTQP news at Gender.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
