Same-Sex Marriage Case

                The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States concluded two and a half hours of oral arguments on same-sex marriage.  Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation spent the morning in the courtroom.  He shared with The Daily Signal his thoughts and feelings on the debate and the questions asked by Justice Anthony Kennedy.  Ryan said there were good arguments on both sides but believes Justice Kennedy is leery about changing “millennial old” traditional marriage to same sex marriage based on ten years of experience.  He even questioned the social science about same sex marriage.  Ryan believes Justice Kennedy’s questions are a good sign of how he will vote. 
                There were over 150 briefs filed with the Supreme Court in this case.  Gene Schaerr listed some of the highlights of points made in the amicus briefs supporting man-woman marriage laws that he hoped the Court considered.  (1) More than 50 million Americans voted to keep the definition of marriage to one man and one woman – 61 percent of those who voted on the issue. 

(2) Traditional marriage – the union of a man and a woman – predates our nation. 

(3) There is a difference between the laws recognizing marriage as the union of one man and one woman and the laws that made interracial marriages illegal. 

(4) Man-woman marriage laws do not infringe on the liberty of gay and lesbian Americans because they remain free to have intimate relations and start families with whomever they choose. 

(5) Redefining marriage as “an any two adults” would “erode or erase many important social norms that flow from man-woman marriage.” 

(6) “Marriage is like an ecosystem that nurtures and protects a particular species:  alter the ecosystem and it likely will not support the species nearly as well, if at all.  Marriage is the social institution or ecosystem that society has long maintained to nurture man-woman marriages and children.” 

(7) Disrupting marriage norms would particularly disserve children and women from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.” 

(8) Only four studies done on the impact of changing the definition of marriage “have met social science’s methodological and data-related standards for drawing inferences about the population at large.  All four ultimately show that, compared to the acknowledged gold standard of family structures – being raised by one’s married biological mother and father – on average, children’s outcomes are not as good when raised by same-sex couples.”

(9) Man-woman marriage laws “satisfy the demands of the Constitution because they advance the states’ compelling interests in the welfare of children and their mothers.”

(10) “Redefining marriage would adversely affect First Amendment freedoms,” “threaten religious liberties” of people and groups that believe in traditional marriage, and “exacerbate the erosion of free speech rights of cultural dissidents.”

                Only time will tell if Justice Kennedy’s question indicate the Court took the above highlights into consideration before voting on the case.  We need to pray for the Justices that they will make the best decision for our nation.