A few months from now Justice Antonin Scalia votes in favor of marriage equality. Since many Americans are alarmed by his vote, he takes the time to explain his decision.

Given my record, I’m not surprised many were taken aback when I decided to cast my vote to legitimize marriage between homosexuals the law of the land in the United States. How did I as a strict Constitutional originalist come to the conclusion that I had to vote in favor of “marriage equality,” despite my own personal discomfort with the matter? Actually, my decision was based on thinking in four distinct areas, which I’ll discuss here briefly. You’ll see then why any sensible conservative surely would have voted the same.

States Rights

Firstly, I must reassert my full support for states rights. At this point in time, the courts in the vast majority of American states have determined that laws preventing the marriage of same sex couples are unConstitutional. Though I may disagree with the conclusions those courts have made, I understood I would need to find a compelling reason to over-rule the decisions they have made repeatedly across the United States of America. As I’ve said previously, we should ever be vigilant to avoid any “needless interference with ‘state sovereignty.’”

Freedom of Religion

It’s true, I’m a religious man. As I’ve said before, “I even believe in the devil.” However, I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of denying marriage to my fellow Americans solely on religious grounds. Arguments from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are powerful to me personally, but I have come to realize that they are just that: personal. If I am to vote on laws, which will govern this great country, I understand that the Constitution must be my reference point. Furthermore, I understand that there is a multiplicity of religious believers in the United States and that even within the Christian community, there are many varying opinions on the subject of gay marriage. Clearly, allowing the beliefs of a particular religious group to stand for all Americans would fly in the face of our hallowed belief in religious freedom. It would undermine the very safeguards our founders in their wisdom sought to create. To those suggesting I should vote according to my religious beliefs, I would simply respond, Have you forgotten that my obligation is to uphold the United States Constitution? I’m not at liberty to ignore the Establishment Clause of that great and unparalleled document.

Insufficient Evidence of Harm

Additionally, if I was to vote against gay marriage, I had to determine the harm gay marriage could bring to the United States. Upon sober personal reflection and upon careful examination of the arguments, which have been placed before me, I have to agree: There is no compelling evidence to date, which shows that the marriage of gay couples would be of any harm to our exceptional society. Now, many of the arguments forwarded to me, again, were clearly rooted in religious preferences. Some of the weakest arguments were that schools would teach that homosexual marriages are identical to heterosexual marriages, that fewer people would remain married for a lifetime or (ironically) that fewer people would be monogamous or faithful. Again, each of these arguments is buttressed by a religious, not a Constitutional argument. They ignore that people of other religious or philosophical beliefs might disagree with their arguments. They also simply posited no data to support these arguments; therefore, they demonstrated no verifiable proof of harm.

Some offered the emotional argument that fewer children would grow up with both a father and a mother or that there is harm in growing up without a father. Of course, I realized the illogic in these arguments, as we don’t outlaw single motherhood, nor do we prevent people from marrying, who don’t wish to have children at all. As I’ve said before, too, “the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.” Furthermore, in performing my due diligence, I discovered the research, which now demonstrates that children growing up in gay families can actually be healthier and happier than their peers. In good conscience, I cannot suggest that children are harmed by gay marriage, nor can I conclude that people should be prevented from marrying who may or may not have children anyway. What would be the Constitutional grounds for that? Eventually, I concluded that all of the arguments to harm were generally flimsy and unsupportable — especially given that gay marriage has been legalized in many states and many countries to date and we’re simply not seeing any deleterious results.

Arguments from Tradition

So all I am left with aside from personal religious beliefs are arguments from tradition. Now, I’ve previously made appeals to tradition myself. However, I have also had to admit that “‘preserving the traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.” Besides, if tradition were an appropriate argument for defining marriage, we’d still be allowing for the marriage of 12-year-old girls and telling mixed race couples they’re not allowed to wed. Any honest viewer of history has to admit that the definition of marriage has changed repeatedly down through the ages and generally in ways which have made it a more, not less, civilizing institution. True students of history already know, too, that marriage started out as a civil affair and that religious ceremonies were only applied to it hundreds, arguably, thousands of years later. “Traditional marriage” has actually meant ownership or even enslavement, depending on the time period and the culture you’re considering. I have to laugh now at Justice Alito’s assertion that “traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years,” while same-sex marriage is “newer than cell phones or the Internet.” Slavery has been around for thousands of years, too, I’d remind my colleague. So it is, I have to admit, that the argument against gay marriage via tradition is truly a paltry one.

How much better for us to consider then the words of Thomas Paine: “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” We’re a nation of greats. Largely, we embrace diversity. And in few places on earth can you find such commitment among people to live together in peace, despite the differences in their backgrounds and in their political and religious beliefs. Understanding this and understanding the genius of our Constitution, I eventually decided that in good conscience, for the reasons I’ve outlined above, I could vote no other way. My personal and religious beliefs will remain just that: Personal and religious. Otherwise, far be if for me to stand in the way of personal and religious liberty. And for those still concerned with my decision, who may still harbor doubts about the morality of gay marriage, I offer you this final piece of advice: Don’t get gay married.

The above is a work of fiction. But it doesn’t have to be.

@stribs