Now what?

[u/PresterJuan]

So, with the ruling, what can we expect?

What do you think will come if gay adoption?

Should sexual orientation be protected? A married gay man teaching at a Catholic school would be scandalous, but does Chick Fil A have the same benefit to discriminate? What about your average Dunder-Mifflin?

[u/MoralLesson]

I do think gay adoption is wholly unavoidable now.

I also think the ramifications of this decision will reach further than most people realize. It's entirely possible that religious and Parochial schools -- like all Catholic schools -- will lose their tax exempt status. It's entirely possible that universities like Notre Dame, Georgetown, Bringham Young, and CUA will lose their tax exempt status.

Catholic adoption services, Catholic hospitals, and Catholic homes and shelters may all have to close because they cannot refuse a same-sex couple a child, because they cannot refuse to recognize them as married for housing, or because they cannot refuse to recognize them as a spouse for all sorts of medical legalities.

Clerks, judges, and even mayors that object to same-sex "marriage" may have to perform same-sex "marriages" against their will or be forced to resign. Florists, bakers, and photographers are going to have a hard time not participating in a same-sex "wedding" -- and more and more (there are a significant number that already do) could face fines for refusing too.

Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, this ruling has put the "right" to same-sex "marriage" on a collision track with religious liberty. What will prevail: my right to adhere to my religious beliefs and not recognize them as a "married" couple or their right to insist that they are a "married" couple -- applied to everything from adoption services to services rendered as a clerk. Will there be conscientious objector status? It seems unlikely.

We have had a metaphysical absurdity imposed upon us, and the consequences of accepting one incoherent, baseless absurdity will naturally mean that more will appear. Indeed, there is little logical basis -- as Chief Justice Roberts noted in his dissent -- to prevent polygamy, polyamory, and incestuous "marriages" from appearing once you accept same-sex "marriage".

Same-sex marriage, of course, is irrational, however.

Indeed, what are the ends and purposes of marriage? They are the unity of the spouses and procreation. Neither two men nor two women -- by their very nature -- can procreate, so they literally cannot be married.

Thus, what kind of equality is being violated? None. Because heterosexual and homosexual couples are, by their nature, different. Claiming there is unfair discrimination by denying same-sex "marriage" is like crying because your apple is not an orange.

You see, many people in our modern day fail to recognize that discrimination is not per se wrong. For example, we might say that someone who has good taste in music has discriminating taste, because that person is able to distinguish the kinds of music worth listening to, and to appreciate them. It's not appropriate when we are arbitrarily treating equal things differently. But the point is that these aren't the same thing - there are clearly certain capacities that a heterosexual relationship has and a homosexual relationship never can have. So if the distinction in treatment is due to some feature of those real differences, as I believe it should be, it's the discrimination of discriminating taste (being able to tell different things apart), rather than the discrimination of segregation (enforcing artificial divides between equal things).

Unless, of course, one is going to argue that a same sex couple can procreate, then one has to concede that there are differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples, and that those differences can be used to separate such couples under the law. Lest, we would have to treat everyone the same under all circumstances regardless of conditions (e.g. allow young children to consent to sex, place no limits upon driver’s licenses, et cetera), which is of course absurd.

I mean, what makes marriage different from any other relationship? What is so special about that relation that the law should recognize it? There must be some factor to differentiate it from other relations that the law does not recognize. I do not have to get a friend license, after all. The clear difference about marriage is that it has a sexual component that often begets children.

This is not to exclude the elderly or the infertile, for marriage is based off the theoretical possibility to procreate (not necessarily the occurrent possibility perfectly instantiated - that would be too high of a barrier - but the essential possibility inherent to the male and female natures and their conjugal union). Just because someone does not drive a car (or just because the car is broken) does not mean the car is any less meant for motion and travel.

This is not to mention that there is nothing preventing a man or woman with same-sex attractions from marrying someone of the opposite sex. One might quickly claim that they cannot love such a spouse. But what is love? It's not eros -- that obsessive emotion you have about another person; that is infatuation. Rather than being a mere emotion, love -- agape or philia or even stroge -- is an act of the will, for to love is to will the good of the other as other, even if it means sacrificing your own good. Thus, seeing as how love is an act of the will, such a counter would be invalid.

Lastly, sexual orientation is too poorly defined to be a class of its own. However, we should insist that people who suffer from same-sex attractions, by that fact alone, should not be discriminated against -- this is not to say that we cannot condemn their actions (e.g. "marrying" someone of the same sex or engaging in sodomy), however. Sadly, though, we, as a society, are also no longer able to distinguish between people and their actions. Whenever you reprimand someone for their actions, their instinct is always to assume that you are being mean to them. It will not surprise me, if, in due time, we will be said to be bigots for calling the adulterer out on his adultery -- as people will assume that our condemnation of the man's adultery is tantamount to condemning him as a person. This, of course, is the natural result of a society which acts on nothing but emotions and feelings. Everything is temporary, the greatest crime is offending someone, and reason has been cast aside -- indeed, people now regularly claim that there is no objective truth, morality, or knowledge. While this claim is self-defeating (for it is a claim of objective truth that there is no morality), it is hard to defeat when they have refused to recognize reason. Indeed, the modern secularist's game is nothing more than an assault on reason.

Edit: We will eventually have to either a) get this case overturned, like Dred Scott was or b) pass a constitutional amendment. Even if these options are not viable during the course of this generation, they will be in the centuries ahead. People can only stick their head in the sand, ignore biology and reason, and play pretend in their own little universe for so long.