Your Opinion: Response to Johnson on same-sex marriage

Dear Editor:

Comments on Mr. Johnson's letter published July 15 on the recent SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage. First, if someone asserts something as fact, it's normally considered "good form" to actually assert truth and historical accuracy.

Johnson's opening paragraph claims the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) all define "marriage" as a bond between a man and a woman. No, Mr. Johnson all three religions either allow polygamy, or have sects that allow polygamy.

Now, some might say this argument is trivial, as the discussion is same-sex marriage, not polygamy. That would have merit, however my point is accuracy and truth.

The second thought is that if you assert an opinion, it is normally considered to be in "good form" to support that assertion with some sort of follow-able logic or rational basis. The assertion that the recent SCOTUS is unconstitutional as it violated the First Amendment right of the separation of church and state is bizarre. The First Amendment to our Constitution prohibits enacting laws based upon "respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, etc."

I can only assume that Johnson believes that the existence of marriages by partners of the same sex somehow denies the free exercise of religion to others. Um, no, Mr. Johnson, that logic doesn't work.

Adam and Steve being married does not affect Christians from practicing their faith. Additionally a church could not be required by statue to marry same-sex couples (a wedding chapel selling walk in marriages might).

Johnson is correct stating "The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the constitution not to make new laws." Obergefell v. Hodges does not "make new law"; it applies the Fourteenth Amendment to U.S. citizens of the same sex wishing to marry. This, Mr. Johnson, means that the decision was indeed constitutional. (One can argue the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to be applied this way; however I believe the majority opinion was correct).

Johnson suggests that the Supreme Court justices be elected to office. The conservative columnist George Will recently commented on similar silliness by the Republican candidate Ted Cruz. "It is, therefore, especially disheartening that Cruz, who clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and who is better equipped by education and experience to think clearly about courts, proposes curing what he considers this court's political behavior by turning the court into a third political branch."