A Biblical response to the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, handed down June 26, 2015.

2. GOD BLESS AMERICA

3. Friday, June 26, 2015
1
(Slip Opinion)
OCTOBER TERM, 2014
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*
Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union
between one man and one woman. The petitioners, 14 same-sex cou-
ples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits
in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that re-
spondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by deny-
ing them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed
in another State given full recognition. Each District Court ruled in
petitioners’ favor, but the Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and
reversed.
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a mar-
riage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawful-
ly licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.
(a) Before turning to the governing principles and precedents, it is
appropriate to note the history of the subject now before the Court.
Pp. 3–10.
(1) The history of marriage as a union between two persons of
the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases. To the respond-
ents, it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extend-
ed to same-sex couples. But the petitioners, far from seeking to de-
value marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and
need—for its privileges and responsibilities, as illustrated by the pe-
——————
with No. 14–562, Tanco et al. v. Haslam, Governor of Ten-
er et al. v. Snyder, Governor of Michigan,
Governor of Kentucky,

4. • … of the importance of marriage to
any civilization.
• … of one’s sexuality is his or her
personal decision.
• … of advantages of raising
children within a marriage.
• … marriage is a fundamental right.
1
(Slip Opinion)
OCTOBER TERM, 2014
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*
Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union
between one man and one woman. The petitioners, 14 same-sex cou-
ples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits
in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that re-
spondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by deny-
ing them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed
in another State given full recognition. Each District Court ruled in
petitioners’ favor, but the Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and
reversed.
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a mar-
riage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawful-
ly licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.
(a) Before turning to the governing principles and precedents, it is
appropriate to note the history of the subject now before the Court.
Pp. 3–10.
(1) The history of marriage as a union between two persons of
the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases. To the respond-
ents, it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extend-
ed to same-sex couples. But the petitioners, far from seeking to de-
value marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and
need—for its privileges and responsibilities, as illustrated by the pe-
——————
*Together with No. 14–562, Tanco et al. v. Haslam, Governor of Ten-
nessee, et al., No. 14–571, DeBoer et al. v. Snyder, Governor of Michigan,
et al., and No. 14–574, Bourke et al. v. Beshear, Governor of Kentucky,
also on certiorari to the same court.
The Court Granted Same-Sex Couples
the Right to Marry Because…

5. 1
(Slip Opinion)
OCTOBER TERM, 2014
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*
Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union
between one man and one woman. The petitioners, 14 same-sex cou-
ples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits
in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that re-
spondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by deny-
ing them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed
in another State given full recognition. Each District Court ruled in
petitioners’ favor, but the Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and
reversed.
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a mar-
riage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawful-
ly licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.
(a) Before turning to the governing principles and precedents, it is
appropriate to note the history of the subject now before the Court.
Pp. 3–10.
(1) The history of marriage as a union between two persons of
the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases. To the respond-
ents, it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extend-
ed to same-sex couples. But the petitioners, far from seeking to de-
value marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and
need—for its privileges and responsibilities, as illustrated by the pe-
——————
*Together with No. 14–562, Tanco et al. v. Haslam, Governor of Ten-
nessee, et al., No. 14–571, DeBoer et al. v. Snyder, Governor of Michigan,
et al., and No. 14–574, Bourke et al. v. Beshear, Governor of Kentucky,
also on certiorari to the same court.
The Court
fundamentally
redefined marriage!

6. THE EFFECTS OF THIS DECISION
Our religious liberties are in jeopardy.
“The First Amendment ensures that religious
organizations and persons are given proper protection as
they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and
so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep
aspirations to continue the family structure they have
long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-
sex marriage for other reasons.” – Justice Kennedy

7. THE EFFECTS OF THIS DECISION
Our religious liberties are in jeopardy.
“The First Amendment ensures that religious
organizations and persons are given proper protection as
they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and
so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep
aspirations to continue the family structure they have
long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-
sex marriage for other reasons.” – Justice Kennedy
“Religious liberty is about more than just the protection
for ‘religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek
to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central
to their lives and faiths.’ Religious liberty is about
freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the
scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil
restraints placed upon religious practice.”
– Justice Thomas, dissenting

8. THE EFFECTS OF THIS DECISION
Our religious liberties are in jeopardy.
“[Today’s decision] will be used to vilify Americans who
are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the
course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional
marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for
African-Americans and women. The implications of this
analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to
stamp out every vestige of dissent.”
– Justice Alito, dissenting

9. THE EFFECTS OF THIS DECISION
One thing will inevitably lead to another.
It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would
apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right
to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond
between two men or two women who seek to marry and
in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante,
at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond be-
tween three people who, in exercising their autonomy,
seek to make the profound choice to marry?
– Chief Justice Roberts, dissenting

10. THE EFFECTS OF THIS DECISION
This decision has settled the debate for our society.
7/4/15, 11:03 AMThe Supremes got it right - It's no longer 'gay marriage.' It's 'marriage.' And we're better for it: Editorial | PennLive.com
Safari Power Saver
Click to Start Flash Plug-in
(http://www.pennlive.com/)
Menu Set Weather
SearchSign In
Subscribe
816comments
The Supremes got it right - It's no longer 'gay
marriage.' It's 'marriage.' And we're better for it:
Editorial
(http://ads.pennlive.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/06/gay_
(http://ads.pennlive.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/passback.pennlive.com/undertonepassba
300x250px_02142014.jpg/533759656431575839596341434d676c)
More in Opinion
As a result of Friday's ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News
will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in
opposition to same-sex marriage.
These unions are now the law of the land. And we will not
publish such letters and op- Eds any more than we would
publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic.
– Editors, PennLive.com

11. SOME IMPORTANT REMINDERS
1. No one has the authority to legislate matters about which God
has already spoken.
2. Courts do not determine Biblical morality.
3. The U.S. Constitution is great, but it is not God’s Word.
4. America is great, but it isn’t God’s chosen nation.
5. None of this changes who we are and what we are to do.
6. If we will reach the world, then we must learn to love everyone.

12. GOD HAS ALREADY RULED.
Genesis 19:1-11 (Ezek. 16:49-50; Jude 7)
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13
Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-11

13. 1. Trust in God.
2. Do discipleship.
3. Prepare for persecution
4. Realize the reason – SIN
5. Hang on to hope.
SO, WHAT NOW?

14. “We ought to obey God
rather than men.”
— Acts 5:29 —

15. GOD BLESS AMERICA