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.

Back to Court?

                It looks like same-sex marriage could be heading back to the Supreme Court in the near future.  Why?  Two federal judges planted their flag and made their stand for the Constitution.  On November 6, 2014, in a 2-1 ruling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit overruled the decisions of lower courts that struck down state laws favoring traditional marriage.

                Four states passed constitutional amendments by popular vote defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  The 6^th Circuit Court ruled that the amendments do not violate the U.S. Constitution.  Residents of Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee can still define marriage as they have traditionally done.

                According to Ryan T. Anderson of The Heritage Foundation  the “decision helpfully explained why these laws are constitutional, why it is reasonable for citizens to support such laws, and why arguments for court-imposed redefinition of marriage do not succeed.  It also sets the stage for marriage to return to the U.S. Supreme Court…..

                “As the 6^th Circuit decision helpfully notes, at issue in these cases is `whether to allow the democratic processes begun in the States to continue in the four States of the Sixth Circuit or to end them now by requiring all States in the Circuit’ to redefine marriage.  The court ruled that the democratic process should continue:

                “`Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us – just two of us in truth – to make such a vital policy call for the 32 million citizens who live within the four states of the Sixth Circuit.’”

                The two judges of the 6^th Circuit join a federal judge in Puerto Rico in their constitutional stand.  On October 21, 2014, United States District Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez found Puerto Rico’s law defining marriage does not require marriage to be redefined.  Judge Perez-Gimenez is the first judge appointed by a Democrat president to uphold marriage law since the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision on the Defense of Marriage. 

                Judge Perez-Gimenez used the Windsor decision to conclude that states have the constitutional right to define marriage.  “The Windsor opinion did not create a fundamental right to same gender marriage nor did it establish that state opposite-gender marriage regulations are amendable to federal constitutional challenges.  If anything, Windsor stands for the opposite proposition:  it reaffirms the States’ authority over marriage, buttressing Baker’s conclusion that marriage is simply not a federal question.”

                I will be interested to see how the Supreme Court handles the situation now.  Will they accept the issue this time?  If so, how will they rule?  Will the Supreme Court uphold the right of American citizens to define marriage or will they force all Americans to change their definition of marriage for the benefit of a very small percentage of the people?  Only time will tell!