Gay marriage: Why Supreme Court got it wrong

One does not have to be a homophobe or bigot to believe that the Supreme Court made a
tragic error today in creating out of thin air an imaginary right for gay marriage. Fridays
landmark mistake will have legal, sociological, and spiritual consequences for years to come.
First, consider the legal ramifications of Fridays decision. By enshrining gay marriage as a
civil right, the Court will be opening a floodgate of litigation against individuals and
businesses that refuse to honor same-sex marriages because of religious convictions. After all, if
gay marriage is a civil right, then anyone who opposes it is guilty of a civil rights violation. We
have already seen bakeries, florists, and wedding chapels sued and, in some cases, put out of
business because of their refusal to participate in gay wedding ceremonies. Expect these suits to
accelerate exponentially now that progressives have been emboldened and armed with a
Supreme Court decision.
Additionally, we can expect both civil and governmental actions against religious institutions
that refuse to honor gay marriage as a civil right. During the oral arguments for this case on April
28, Justice Samuel Alito asked the Solicitor General for the Obama administration, Donald
Verrilli, if the decision expanding the definition of marriage would require religious colleges to
offer housing to same-sex couples or risk losing their tax-exempt status. Verrilli responded
repeatedly, I dont deny this is going to be an issue.
Its going to be an issue not only for religious colleges but also for churches that refuse to honor
same-sex marriage. I am repeatedly confronted by the straw man argument that No one is going
to hold a gun to pastors heads and force them to perform same-sex marriages.
Fridays Supreme Court decision represents a collective shaking of our fists in Gods face saying,
We dont care what You say about lifes most important relationship. We know best.
No one is predicting that will happen, but I believe that ultimately churches that refuse to honor
same-sex marriage may face government sanctionsincluding the loss of their tax-exempt status
for refusing to honor same-sex unions.
Again, Justice Alito pointed out in the oral arguments that in 1983 the Supreme Court upheld the
revocation of the tax-exempt status of a religious organizationBob Jones Universityfor
prohibiting interracial marriage. If gay marriage has now been elevated to a civil right on par
with interracial marriage, what rationale would government have for not revoking the tax-exempt
status of any religious organization that does not recognize same-sex unions?
We dont have to guess about the sociological implications of Fridays decision. Stanley Kurtz, a
senior fellow at Stanford Universitys Hoover Institution, contends that the legitimization of
same-sex unions in Scandinavian countries has caused the heterosexual marriage rate to drop
dramatically, while the number of children born out of wedlock has risen, resulting in numerous
societal problems.
The reason for the drop in the heterosexual marriage rate is clear: if marriage can be redefined to
include any and every relationship, then why bother to marry at all? Anytime you counterfeit

something, you cheapen the value of the real thing, and gay marriage is counterfeit marriage
(In fairness, heterosexuals have also been cheapening the value of marriage for years
through adultery and divorce.)
As a Christian, I am most concerned about the spiritual implications of Fridays decision.
During the oral arguments for this case on April 28, Justice Kennedy noted that the traditional
definition of marriage has been with us for millennia. Its very difficult for the Court to say,
Oh, well, we know better.
Friday, the Supreme Court said in essence, We know better than God how to define marriage.
For thousands of years both Christians and Jews have believed in both the Old and New
Testament definition of marriage that was written by Moses and affirmed by Jesus Himself when
He said that God made them male and female ... For this reason, a man shall leave his
father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh (Matthew
19:4-5).
Jesus taught that sex was a gift from God between one man and one woman in a marriage
relationship. Any variation from thatpremarital sex, adultery, polygamy, unbiblical
divorce, or homosexualityis a deviation from Gods original plan for sex. Fridays
Supreme Court decision represents a collective shaking of our fists in Gods face saying, We
dont care what You say about lifes most important relationship. We know best.
While Fridays decision by the Supreme Court is tragic, it is ultimately irrelevant. Regardless of
what the Supreme Court justices declared Friday, the Judge of all of the universe has already
issued His decision: marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman. And there is no
appealing that verdict.
Dr. Robert Jeffress is pastor of the 12,000-member First Baptist Church in Dallas and also is a
Fox News Contributor. His daily radio program is heard on 800 stations nationwide and his
weekly television program is seen on more than 11,000 stations and cable systems in 195
countries.

I am going to analyze an opinion article published by Dr. Robert Jeffress, on June 26, 2015, on
the www.foxnews.com. The title of his article is Gay marriage: Why Supreme Court got it
wrong. Here, we find the fact that he argues against the legalization gay marriage. This comes
in the context of the legalization of gay marriage by the Supreme Court of the USA, in June
2015. Mr Jeffress is concerned that this mistake will have legal, sociological and spiritual
consequences in the years to come.
The author is listing a couple of cases in which people who do not approve gay marriage suffered
from refusing these partnerships in various way. Also, he makes a call to the spiritual danger that
is hanging upon the religion.
In order to persuade the reader, he uses pathos (appeal to emotion), logos (appeal to
reason/logic), and ethos (appeal to credibility).
To achieve the pathos and ethos, he brings up real cases when heterosexual people were suit
because refused to honor same-sex marriages while providing services through they business. In
this way, he appeals to the readers emotional side, wanting them to empathy with the victims.
- Example: We have already seen bakeries, florists, and wedding chapels sued and, in some
cases, put out of business because of their refusal to participate in gay wedding ceremonies.
Another method in reaching to peoples emotion is by making them identify with him. He puts
himself in the position of the common peoples, the religious one, who believe in God and in
Bible.
- Example: As a Christian, I am most concerned about the spiritual implications
To gain credibility, he mentioned officials admitting that churches that refuse to honor same-sex
marriage may face government sanctions.
- Example: the Solicitor General for the Obama administration, Donald Verrilli, responded
repeatedly, I dont deny this is going to be an issue.
He has an attempt to leave the impression of being unbias and mentions a similarity of how
heterosexual and gay couples perceive marriage.
Example: In fairness, heterosexuals have also been cheapening the value of marriage for years
through adultery and divorce.
Even so, he doesnt bring any statistics which could sustain this argument.
Another moment when he chose to present the fact in a bias way was when he quoted from the
Bible, saying that God made them male and female ... For this reason, a man shall leave his
father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh (Matthew 19:45). He didnt mention the fact that it also says that what God has joined together, let man not
separate. Especially because statistics show that more than 50% of the American couples broke
this vow taken in front of God and get divorce.
The subject matter has contemporary relevance and there is a controversy surrounding it. The
strengths of the choice of topic lays exactly in this controversy. Its weakness is that doesnt offer
any solution to the problem.