Alexander Hamilton wrote…

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

And so it is that the Supreme Court of the United States, drawing from the corpus of the constitution, interprets the will of the nation and its founders. Moreover, the voice of the people is heard in the decision of the court. If that be so, the seeds of the recent decision affirming a right to marry regardless of gender have been germinating in the constitution from the beginning. Now, the will of the people has brought those seeds to full flower. The Supreme Court says so.

“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” has brought us to this. Some forward-thinkers predicted it would eventually come—Francis Schaeffer, for example. He said a culture that made decisions beyond the pale of moral absolutes, basing them, instead, on personal fulfillment and affluence, would be bound to move toward the preferences of the individual. Thus, as a free people, we are free to marry whom we please.

What should be the response of those of us who follow “The Nazarene?” We must graciously demur. Are we ready for the consequences? I doubt it.

More on the implications of recent developments in the days ahead.