My very short piece on three troubling aspects of the case is published in [Relay], the Journal of Worldview Academy, for whom I teach during the summer.
I begin where Chief Justice Roberts and Scalia begin, with the alarming fact that the opinion-- the thing that is supposed to justify the legal reasoning of the court to the world-- has nothing to do with law and has no "legal reasoning" in it:
First, the most troubling aspect of Obergefell is what it says about law itself and what that means for the future of the rule of law in America. This decision was not based on law—in fact, it had nothing to do with the law. The case was decided, instead, on pure will: the political and social preferences of five justices on the Supreme Court.
Read the whole thing. It's barely 1000 words.
|Podcasts are now searchable on iTunes|
Also, if you wonder how a Christian criminal defense lawyer justifies his trade theologically, check out my latest podcast, which is a Remix of an old Cross & Gavel interview with my former student, J.T. Borah. It's a good conversation. He claims, for example, that a criminal trial is not about truth, but is about "process."