Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Winter 2025 PDF
    • WINTER 2025 HTML
    • THE HUMAN LIFE REVIEW HTML COLLECTION PAGE
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2024: NEW MEDIA ADDED!
    • Great Defender of Life 50th Anniversary Dinner Ticket 2024
    • Great Defender of Life 50th Anniversary Dinner TABLE for TEN Ticket 2024
    • Great Defender of Life 2024 Young Adult / Pregnancy Center Staffer Tickets
    • HOST COMMITTEE Great Defender of Life Dinner 2024
    • DINNER JOURNAL ADVERTISING 2024
    • ARCHIVE: GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2023
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
    • ISSUES IN HTML FORMAT
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Your Cart: Shipping is ALWAYS Free!

Articles

Over 45 years of Life-Defending Articles At Your Fingertips
1 Comment

What Was the Supreme Court’s Goal?

Connie Marshner
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled on Obergefell v. Hodges and wiped the traditional meaning of marriage out of the laws of the United States.

Words of the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Roberts will resonate in legal history: “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

One critic called the decision “nine parts romantic poetry and one part legal analysis (if that).”   The decision, a paean to libertinism, only confirms what we as a nation have been living for decades.

In 1965, with Griswold v. Connecticut, the high court of the land invented a “right” of personal privacy that separated sexual activity from its role in the social order. The cultural revolution underway at the time had already demoted sex to nothing more than a tool for the pursuit of pleasure.

In 1973, with Roe v. Wade, the high court of the land invented a further “right” of privacy that focused on a woman’s sexual freedom to the exclusion of the rights of her unborn child.

Last week, the Court invented a further “right” of liberty that focuses on sexual freedom to the exclusion of any interest on the part of society in the ordering of this strongest of primal urges.

Interesting, isn’t it, that these newly discovered liberties all seem to support childlessness? Is parenthood somehow a denial of personal liberty?

It is, of course, when its responsibilities are accepted and discharged.

And therein lies the importance and the power of parenthood.

It is precisely the acceptance and discharge of parental responsibility that anchors hormone-driven youngsters to a reality beyond themselves, as they assume the role of adults in society.

It is accepting and discharging the responsibilities that flow from sexual activity that link individuals to one another, and generations to each other and to their larger community, in a permanent bond to the past and to the future. The ordering of sexuality is the basis of society.

But in 1965, Griswold called the ordering of sexuality “governmental intrusion” and initiated the breakdown of the social order.

“Great Society” programs undertaken around the same time enabled women to relieve men of responsibility for the consequences of their sexual activity. The Pill came on the scene and enabled women to relieve themselves of that responsibility on a massive scale.

Enacted in 1971, and swiftly and permanently funded with billions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, Title X ensured that young women would never know a connection between sexual activity and responsibility—unless they learned it from their parents or their church.

And in 1973 came Roe v. Wade.

In his dissent, Justice Byron White called Roe “an exercise of raw judicial power . . . an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”

Within days of that decision, Congressman Larry Hogan (R-MD), father of the current governor of that state, introduced the first of many constitutional amendments to overturn Roe. Back in April, presidential candidate and senator Ted Cruz anticipated Obergefell and introduced a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a heterosexual union. Since the decision, other presidential candidates have talked constitutional amendment.

Will a marriage amendment have a smoother path than a human life amendment?

The day after the decision was handed down, the New York Times ran a story with the headline: “Next Fight for Gay Rights: Bias in Jobs and Housing.” Many believe that a free translation of that might be: Next LGBT Target: Freedom of Religion.

At least there are words about the free exercise of religion in the Constitution—if it matters to the Supreme Court what’s in the Constitution.

 

*     *     *     *     *

Connie Marshner organized her first pro-life meeting in 1971, among Capitol Hill staffers who sensed a drift toward legalizing abortion.  She’s worked in the movement in one capacity or another ever since.

225 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.
About the Author
Connie Marshner

Connie Marshner is a commentator and researcher on life and family issues in the Washington, D.C., area.Connie Marshner bio pic 2016

Social Share

  • google-share

One Comment

  1. Barbara July 3, 2015 at 1:31 am Reply

    The content of the Constitution is of no importance to the justices who issued this majority opinion.
    Have they even read the constitution? Have they read the Federalist papers?

    They are denying the clear intent of the Constitution for their own preferences …nothing more than that. They are unelected yet they are placing themselves above the will of the electorate.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR
The-Human-Life-Foundation
DONATE TODAY!

Recent Posts

Israeli Supreme Court Minimizes Biological Parenthood

22 May 2025

Pro-life Groups Can’t be Forced to Accommodate Abortions, Federal Judge Rules

14 May 2025

Yonkers Woman Learns Abortion is Not the ‘Quick Fix’ She Thought 

12 May 2025

CURRENT ISSUE

Alexandra DeSanctis Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott Bernadette Patel Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke D. Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Helen Alvaré Jacqueline O’Hara Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kristan Hawkins Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Marvin Olasky Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Matt Lamb Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Rev. W. Ross Blackburn Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro Wesley J. Smith William Murchison

Shop 7 Weeks Coffee--the Pro-Life Coffee Company!
Support 7 Weeks Coffee AND the Human Life Foundation!
  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • Annual Human Life Foundation Dinner

Follow Us On Twitter

Follow @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.