Skip to comments.Will the Supreme Court Let Citizens Answer, What Is Marriage?
Posted on 11/29/2012 1:51:44 PM PST by fwdude
As Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and I argue in The Wall Street Journal, the future of marriage is the future of humanity.
Conservatives rightly uphold the institution of marriage between a man and a woman because marriage is the seedbed of society, the necessary precondition for limited self-government.
But not everyone sees it this way. With the United States Supreme Court expected to decide this week whether to hear challenges to traditional marriage laws, now is the time for citizens to think deeply about the nature and purpose of marriage.
Marriage unites a man and woman holisticallyemotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forthfor the whole of life.
In the revisionist view of marriage, however, what sets marriage apart from other bonds is emotional intensitywhat one philosopher refers to as your number one person. But nothing about emotional union requires it to be permanent. Or limited to two. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive. Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands.
As a result, redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships would harm the common good as it obscures the true nature of marriage and thus weakens the marriage culture. Weakening marital norms would hurt children and spouses, especially the poorest among us.
Empty appeals to equality get us nowhere. As my co-authors and I argue:
Every marriage policy draws lines, leaving out some types of relationships. Equality forbids arbitrary line-drawing. But we cannot know which lines are arbitrary without answering two questions: What is marriage, and why does it matter for policy?
The conjugal and revisionist views are two rival answers; neither is morally neutral. Each is supported by some religious and secular worldviews but rejected by others. So voters must decide: Which view is right?
The best philosophy, theology, sociology, and what G. K. Chesterton called the democracy of the deadtraditionall suggest that the conjugal view is right.
As we argue in our new book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, marriage is a uniquely comprehensive union. It involves a union of hearts and minds but also a bodily union made possible by sexual complementarity. Marriage is inherently extended and enriched by procreation and family life and objectively calls for similarly all-encompassing commitment, norms of permanence, and exclusivity.
In the op-ed, we detail why conservatives would be ill-advised to abandon support for conjugal marriage even if it hadnt won more support than Governor Mitt Romney in every state where marriage was on the ballot.
Every FReeper here who supports real marriage needs to donate to the Prop 8 Legal Defense Team - NOW! They are the small David having to raise over $1 million more to go against the multi-millions donated by the homowood activist Goliath.
Unfortunately, homosexual marriage is strongly accepted by Hollywood idiots, the MSM, and young people in general.
On Nov. 6th, voters of three liberal states, Maine, Maryland, and Washington, approved homosexual marriage. These votes would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago. In addition, voters in Minnesota voted down a state constitutional amendment to define marriage. Since Minnesota is a liberal state, it’s just a matter of time until their legislature votes for homosexual marriage.
Unfortunately, the liberal view is gaining ground. The idea that marriage of 1 man and 1 woman is discriminatory and all that, carries more weight with lots of people, than any conservative argument about how marriage should be defined, what marriage is, or any of that.
The over simplified liberal view of “discrimination” against an officially aggrieved group, in this case homosexuals, is persuading liberals and even some conservative/libertarian types, that we should allow homosexual marriage.
These states DID NOT approve fake marriage - these were just 4 states on the long list of fraudulent elections. There is NO WAY that voters approved these.
After their shellacking in North Carolina in May, homo-activist could not afford to lose any more momentum, so they fixed the election.
There is no reason for delusions that may yield any other answer.
The problem with Reynolds, however, is the following imo. The Supreme Court did not test Reynolds under 10th Amendment protected state powers because Utah was a US territory at the time, not a state. And I"m inclined to think that 10th Amendment trumps common law, individual states having the 10th Amendment protected power to define marriage.
On the other hand, 10th Amendment protected state power to define marriage complicates the application of the Full Faith and Credit statute imo, Section 1 of Article 4 of the Constitution.
Regardless, activist justices aside, noting that it's not the Supreme Court's job to decide the legal definition of marriage, the Supreme Court might be able to fall back on Reynolds and apply traditional marriage to all the states, or declare marriange a 10th protected state power issue in which case it is up to the individial states to define marriage.
I agree! After the turn-out for Chick-fil-A,there’s NO WAY that FOUR states were lost in a LEGIT vote only a few short months later!
I am not suggesting this applies in your case; however, I find many conservatives many times argue over 'who' in biopic terms as to rights; e.g. Federal or State; when clearly it is the people who hold ALL rights except those designated the government.
I would suggest that where there is argument as to who; e.g. who defines marriage; that clearly the answer is neither the federal or the state but rather the people e.g. society as evidenced historically in common law.
Government law does not supersede common law in areas where government has no domain granted.