The best article I've read on Obergefell v. Hodges

I've skimmed dozens of articles both before and after the Supreme Court's decision on Obergefell v. Hodges was handed down last week.  Most of them I'd begin to read, then grow bored and end up scanning paragraphs to see if there was anything truly new or intriguing or interesting.  For the most part, the articles I read seemed to miss the fundamental issues in the case, those lying more deeply than the demise of democracy in America.

But fortunately, I clicked on a new article this morning -- "Creation and the future of marriage" by Los Angeles' Archbishop Jose Gomez.  It is very much worth reading and sharing.

If I could, I would paste the entire column here, but instead I will share a piece or two, and send you on your way to Angelus: The Tidings Online to read it in full.  Bookmark it.  Share it.  Reread it.  Archbishop Gomez has really found the pulse of the problem, digging far deeper to find a remedy than most everyone else.

But the opinion of the five justices in the Court’s majority reflects the passions and priorities of many who lead and shape our society in the areas of law, government, education, science, industry and the media.

In fact, Obergefell expresses the same “anthropocentric” and “technocratic” mentality that Pope Francis warns about in his new encyclical, Laudato Si’ (“Praised Be”).

At the heart of this mentality is a rejection of the idea of creation and human nature. Everything — the natural world, our social institutions, our physical bodies, even our very “selves” — everything becomes a kind of “raw material” that we can engineer according to our will, using technology, psychology and even law and social policy. 

This “technocratic” mindset explains the audacious tone of the Obergefell ruling. The Court expresses noble thoughts about the “transcendent” purposes of marriage and its importance as a “keystone” of our social order. It acknowledges that marriage has existed “for millennia and across civilizations.”

But the five justices in the Court’s majority do not accept that human sexuality and marriage are part of the order of creation. For them, these are just “constructs” that we are free to “re-construct” according to our preferences.
That is why these justices can assume they have the wisdom to “recreate” this institution that has been the foundation of human civilization. That is why they can presume the power to discard the definition of marriage that has existed since the beginning of history — as the lifelong union of one man and one woman.

Be sure to read the entire piece here.