Ruling frustrates religious, political gay-marriage foes

In a 5-4 ruling, the court said states cannot ban same-sex marriage, a decision that was expected but not welcomed by some faith leaders and politicians. Religious bodies are not affected by the ruling and can decide on their own whether to perform same-sex marriages.

In a way, they were swimming against a cultural tide. In recent years, more Americans have become accepting of same-sex marriage. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that support for legalizing gay marriage is at its highest point in nearly two decades. Millennials, in particular, tend to be more accepting of gay marriage.

After the decision was handed down, several gay and lesbian couples rushed to courthouses across Georgia to say their “I dos.”

It was not a sight that the Rev. Cade Farris wants to witness.

Farris, senior pastor of First Baptist Church on the Square in LaGrange, recently moved from a church in Alabama.

“This has been on my heart and mind a lot,” he said. “I’m saddened by the ruling from a biblical standpoint.”

He said he wouldn’t perform a same-sex marriage nor allow staffers to, whether on or off church premises.

If anything, he said, the ruling will make churches clarify their polices and practices and have “more urgency to share the truth about Jesus and Jesus’ teachings.”

Another sign of decline?

The Rev. Don Hattaway, president of the Georgia Baptist Convention and senior pastor at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Cartersville, which has about 3,000 members, said of the ruling: “Most people of faith have seen the moral decline in our nation since the 1960s, and this is just another step in that direction.”

Hattaway said he will address the issue in his Sunday sermon.

“We’re going to abide by what Scripture says — one man and one woman.”

Pastor Gary Kirkendall of Broad Street Church of Christ in LaGrange is not alone in worrying the ruling could open a Pandora’s box. He said a church’s tax-exempt status could come under scrutiny.

“Up until today the states regulated marriage licenses. Now they have to be compliant with federal law,” he said. “With today’s ruling, the Supreme Court decided who’s eligible for marriage. That’s whole new ground. We just have to wait and see.”

Some religious leaders struck what appears to be a more conciliatory tone, although they did not stray from their opposition to same-sex marriages.

Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory of the Archdiocese of Atlanta called the decision a “deep disappointment for some people and vindication for others.”

Morality debate will continue

While conferring certain rights to same-sex couples, it does not resolve the moral debate that will most certainly continue in its wake, the archbishop said in a statement. For instance, the Catholic Church believes the sacrament of marriage should be between a man and a woman.

“The decision has made my ministry as a pastor more complex, since it demands that I both continue to uphold the teachings of my church regarding the sacrament of matrimony while also demanding that I insist upon respect for the human dignity of both those who approve of the judgment as well as those who may disapprove,” he said in a statement.

He urged people on both sides of the issue to be civil to each other.

Anthea Butler, an associate professor of religious studies and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania, said what follows will be a moment of searching in pews across the nation.

“It’s a moment of decision,” she said. “Are you for it because it’s the right thing to do, but against it publicly because your faith tradition does not allow it? Or maybe your faith tradition allows it, but you are conflicted? I think pastors and other religious leaders have their jobs cut out for them over the Supreme Court’s decision.”

Cries of ‘judicial activism’

Politicians also had their say.

Most of Georgia’s Republican members of Congress issued statements decrying the ruling, often echoing Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Coweta County, who accused the five-justice majority of “judicial activism.”

“It should be decided by the people of the state through a democratic process; for the 10th amendment guarantees the states and people rights that are not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution,” Westmoreland said. “I will continue to fight to protect traditional marriage values and the religious rights of those who join me in believing that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Rep. Tom Price, a Roswell Republican, pointed to the dozens of states, including Georgia, where voters passed measures restricting marriage to one man and one woman.

“This is not only a sad day for marriage, but a further judicial destruction of our entire system of checks and balances,” Price said.

Fighting back won’t be easy

The legal avenues to strike back are few. Social conservative activists could use the energy around the court ruling to launch another long-shot bid for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage — the only way to override the court.

Rep. Doug Collins, a Gainesville Republican and an ordained Baptist minister, said he would be firmly on board.

“Because this decision has robbed the American people of their freedom of choice, I strongly support a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman,” Collins said.

But the notion of getting two-thirds majorities in each house of Congress and then three-fourths of state legislatures to ratify an amendment is far-fetched at best.

Many Republican foes — from those running for president to Georgia legislators — kept the focus instead on the court invalidating the will of voters.

“Today’s ruling shuts down that democratic process and usurps the power of the people,” said Georgia Republican U.S. Sen. David Perdue. “Once again, we see a court that has overstepped its limited constitutional role rather than allow the American people to decide this issue democratically, which is what the Constitution demands.”

State Sen. Josh McKoon, R-Columbus, called it a “disappointing” ruling and an overreach by the high court.