Sez who?

Whenever an individual or a society faces some crucial cultural, ethical issue there is, looming in the background an absolutely critical question:  Sez Who?   That is, if you assert that  marriage is [fill in the blank], then who's to say you are right in your assertion?

Theists -- people like our Founding Fathers who believed in a Creator -- can plausibly answer the Sez Who question by saying, "God says....."  (And that's just what Christians do on this matter, relying on passages like Gen. 1:27; 2:24 and Matt. 19:4-6).   Now of course secularists don't find this convincing, nor do they accept this answer to the Sez Who? question.  But what almost always seems to go unnoticed is that they do not appear to have a coherent and compelling answer themselves to "Sez Who?"

Is their answer to, "Who says your concept of marriage is the right one?" -- is their answer merely, "I do...I and the people who agree with me"?   Would that be Justice Kennedy's answer?   So are we down to merely "we do, and majority rules"?  But our founding documents' understanding of inalienable rights (endowed by the Creator, and recognized, but not given, by Government) -- that understanding was precisely intended and designed to protect these fundamental rights from the dictates of the majority.

And yet, it seems like "majority rules" is what has happened here.   There is, in this world-view, no transcendent "Who" (God) -- Justice Kennedy's opining does not, because it cannot, go there.  There is only 'us' -- and so, "majority rules" after all.  And it's not the majority of the populace (via referendum) nor the majority of duly-elected legislators (via political process) -- no, it's the majority of Supreme Court justices.

So 'who says' that marriage is what we were told yesterday that it is?  Five judges, that's who.