Words mean something, especially in a landmark court case dealing with the legalization of same sex marriage. Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority of the Supreme Court acknowledged that: “religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same sex marriage should not be condoned.”

In his opinion, he pointed to the First Amendment that “ensures that religious organizations and persons” be “given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” But the opinion really never talks about the “free exercise” of religion or even the “establishment” of a state religion.

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas seemed disturbed by the way Justice Kennedy framed the issues. “The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph.” He goes on the says, “even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”

Justice John Roberts focused on the words that were used and the word that wasn’t used. “The majority graciously suggested that religious believers may continue to advocate and teach their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to exercise religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.” (emphasis added)

I believe the way Justice Kennedy framed his majority opinion should be a concern. One guest on my program suggested this section of the opinion might just be poorly worded. That may be true, but I doubt it. This majority opinion seems to be saying you can advocate for traditional marriage but you can’t exercise your religion based on that belief.