Marriage Goes to Court

This Tuesday, April 28th, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear oral arguments on the question of whether it is unconstitutional to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.

While the debate over the definition of marriage has been taking place for more than a decade, the Supreme Court could remove the entire debate from the legislative process.

This is what happened in Roe v. Wade when SCOTUS declared a constitutional right to an abortion.

In the same way, Plaintiff’s in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges are asking the Supreme Court to declare that it is unconstitutional to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.

In one sense, the assertion is just silly.

The word “marriage” isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

When the Constitution was written, every state defined marriage in this way and federal law has always recognized it as such.

This would be something like declaring the horse and buggy unconstitutional.

You may not like the horse and buggy.

You may think there’s a better way of getting around these days.

You may even want to pass a law to keep horses and buggies off of interstates given the changes in transportation technology (which we have done).

But that’s very different than claiming the horse and buggy was unconstitutional all along, we just hadn’t realized it.

Of course marriage and the family is not a form of transportation subject to technological changes. It is an ecosystem governed by rules that we did not create.

While many on the left would beg us (no, force us) to honor the balance of that fragile ecosystem if it were a salamander, when it is merely a child, we are more inclined to innovate and hope for the best.

So on Tuesday, they will ask the Supreme Court to discover a constitutional right for two men to get “married”.

These days, Constitutional law is a bit like gold mining. Just keep digging and one day, “Well, looky here. It’s a constitutional right.”

Most observers believe there are four solid votes in favor of discovering a new right (Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) and four votes in favor of allowing marriage to be defined through the legislative process. (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito).

That would leave Justice Anthony Kennedy as the deciding vote in the final decision expected to be released in June.

But that is just conjecture. The court has surprised us before. Whatever the outcome, the debate over marriage will not soon be over.

The Supreme Court is powerful, but they do not have the power to reengineer the rules that govern what makes a family strong.

The rules that determine whether individuals, families, and cultures will be strong are not made by us, they were made for us. We will either honor them or suffer the consequences of pretending we are the smartest people who ever lived.

Either way, reality, truth, and marriage (the real kind) will need advocates.

14 replies
  1. Peter Bracus
    Peter Bracus says:

    Our Nation (the entire “Western Civilization”) is morally collapsing. Mark my words, the polygamists are licking their chops. They are the next in line for “legalization” of their sexual desires and “marriages.” After them, I see those who “love” little children and want “legal marriage status. It doesn’t stop there. Fourth in line are those committing incest, currently illegal, but they now see the day coming for them as well. Fifth in line are the practitioners of bestiality who want legal recognition of for marriage to their animals. You think this is a joke? I assure you, it is no joke in the mind of these deviants, and it is no joke when you study history (check out the debauchery of Roman history in particular. You who advocate a decline into “normalizing” and “legalizing” homosexuality might be surprised at how far beyond that relationship things can go, when people check their minds at the door and follow the impulses of their hormones with abandonment.

    Reply
  2. Saint John the Baptist
    Saint John the Baptist says:

    Rick: Sorry, but God does not ‘allow love to inhabit all peoples’ that are willfully sinful. God calls us to REPENT from sin (read: turn away from wrong, immoral behavior). So as long as say, a husband with five wives could raise their children in a ‘loving environment’ that is OK by you? By the way, Christians are to be the ‘light and salt’ of the world; not hidden away with no opinions. Nice try to marginalize; try (Biblical) facts to support your causes (hint: you can’t).

    Reply
  3. Rick Wilson
    Rick Wilson says:

    What, really is wrong with the people who support this organization? You invite a former congressman to your conference who was so extreme in his hatred that he called people with whom he disagrees, rally vile names and made fun of earnest people who were simply trying to improve the world; he represented a conservative district and even they could not support his re-election. You spend so much time and energy being exercised about who is marrying who. If marriage is for procreation, I assume people over a certain age should to have their marriages recognized because they are not bringing more hungry mouths into this world, right? People who have a child in a marriage ought to have that child or children removed from them if their spouse dies, because you believe only a household headed by a man AND woman is deemed sufficiently pure to raise a child. Why do you not relax and allow God’s love to inhabit all peoples and pray all children are raised in a loving environment and be happy about that? If you cannot be gracious and Christian enough to allow that, at least advocate for the repeal of all laws and taxes that benefit married couples as you refuse to allow others those same benefits.

    Reply
    • Rsim
      Rsim says:

      Rick, sorry you’re so swept away with trying to preserve your own comfort by just going along with the crowd. And how is it that you presume to speak for God concerning those upon whom God bestows his love? God has already giving his word concerning God’s perspective. You can “re-create” a god image after your own liking all you want, but it changes nothing. Really! I’ve grown weary with all your types, trying to speak for God while denying the revelation God himself has given, in both nature, history, and the inspired writings of the Scriptures. Please don’t lecture on what “God” wants until you have humbled yourself in His presence and submitted yourself to HIS word, not the word of your self-adulating peers. Will you ever have the courage to think and speak for yourself or will you always spout the mumble jumble of your peers for fear of loosing their . . . what is it you are afraid of loosing? Their phony friendship? Their shallow praise? Their hypocritical double-talk?

      Reply
    • Jeremy McGinnis
      Jeremy McGinnis says:

      Rick, I believe you have good intentions for leaving your post.

      I would ask you to consider the impact the lack of a father (or mother, for that matter, though I am only speaking from my experience) has on a child and the challenges one faces due to that integral missing piece.

      I understand your use of the rate of broken traditional homes and unhealthy traditional families as examples to legitimize same sex marriages as “healthy”. I posit the transverse; legality of same-sex marriage de-legitimizes traditional marriage by declaring the role both a mother and father play in the emotional and physical well being and development of the child not only irrelevant, but outdated.
      Mincing words by claiming not all are for pro-creation is a fallacious argument when, once the rights have been given, adoption and in-vitro fertilization are made more politically acceptable and the argument is no longer even on the table. This acceptance via popular expressed opinion (I say expressed because most of those who agree with us have been stifled by bullying aggression through loss of public opinion or even occupation) opens children up to families which would raise them under far less ideal environments than those that could provide for the emotional and physical needs different sexed parents meet. There is no shortage of those healthy, traditional marriages looking to adopt in the same circumstances. I’d be curious to find how many same-sex couples adopt out of the foster care system. What we see are the glamorized Hollywood versions of such unions.

      The percentage of “open” relationships amongst gay marriages is no secret. Ask an adult child of such a marriage in a traditional family how they felt about the infidelity and it’s long lasting effect on their ability to trust.

      Homosexual people (as well as same-sex marriage proponents) think their “marriages” should be treated equally in the eyes of the court when the natural reality presents these, “marriages” as very different. This is, therefore, an attempt at re-defining the physical, spiritual and legal term in many facets.

      In cooking, to marry two different flavors is not to mix the same flavors, but to combine two different flavors, creating an entirely new flavor. Considering sexuality’s undeniable role in marriage, “marrying” the same sex just doesn’t make sense physiologically or bio-chemically.

      This is not a, “Constitutional” issue it is one rooted in the dictates of natural law.

      Reply
  4. Karen Grube
    Karen Grube says:

    Oh good grief! We need to do one heck of a lot more than pray! Vote smarter next time so we don’t have Senators who will approve Supreme Court Justices and federal judges like these. Call your Member of Congress and Senators and tell them you support traditional marriage and laws protecting religious liberty. Work with your state legislature to pass voter id laws and Religious Freedom laws. Then, tell your friends and family to do the same! It’s not enough to expect God to turn things around for us. He works THROUGH us, not instead of us and not despite us. We are His hands in this world. Use them – our feet, our voices, our minds – intelligently and speak out.

    Reply
    • Rick Wilson
      Rick Wilson says:

      Good grief, indeed. You cite the need for voter id laws – do you have ANY evidence of their necessity or just the usual anecdotes spouted on Fox? Wisconsin just put into effect strict voter id laws costing the state hundreds of thousands and individuals many hours of wasted time. Why? Because in the past TEN YEARS there was ONE case of voter fraud and that was for a man who picked up an absentee ballot for his just-deceased wife. Whoa, scandal! Now everyone in the entire state must get new id to vote. I can only imagine your relief at getting places like Wisconsin out form under that voter fraud crushing burden. Try facts to support your causes, eh?

      Reply
      • 11th Gen American
        11th Gen American says:

        In case you’re too stupid, too busy, and thus too uninformed to realize that the Obama Administration has been doing everything it possibly can during the previous 6.5 years to pave the way for millions of illegals and non-citizens to vote in the 2012 and 2016 elections, you better wake up and smell the sewage! With social security cards, which Obama is planning to issue to illegals, and driver’s licenses, which Obama wants illegals to obtain, nearly every state in the Union will have extreme difficulty keeping those illegals from voting. Here in Washington State, where I reside, it’s entirely on the honor-system when it comes to registering to vote. The form only asks Yes or No, are you an American Citizen. To my knowledge, there’s no system in place to verify if those who register are in fact citizens. Being a left-wing-wacko dominated state, I’m sure that public election officials are prevented from checking the status of voters. And then we have the ultra-liberal State of Oregon, which automatically registers everyone who applies for a driver’s license. What’s to discourage illegals from voting under that system? Absolutely Nothing! We need Congress to require that the E-Verify system be utilized for every person who registers to vote! We also need Congress to punish illegal voters with at least a $5,000 fine and automatic deportation to their home countries! Now that Attorney General Holder has been replaced, I’m praying that his successor will be more likely to follow the rule of law regarding illegal immigrants and illegal voting, but I’m not holding my breath since Loretta Lynch openly stated in her confirmation hearing that she supports Obama’s (illegal) actions.

        Reply
  5. Lois Sharpe
    Lois Sharpe says:

    Everytime I read something like this my blood pressure rises and I comfort myself in being reminded that Jesus is coming soon and people are “waxing worse and worse” just as the Bible promises just before His coming. Even animals know better than to do what these people are advocating. Oh Lord have mercy on my Country! “Righteousness exalts a Nation but sin is a reproach to any people”.(Prov. 14:34) There is no comfort in knowing that “hell has enlarged herself and opened her mouth without measure”. Isiah 5:14. They are oh so smart but “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh.”(Psalms 2:4) God made marriage between a man and a woman and they KNOW it because “the grace of God that brings Salvation has appeared to ALL men; teaching them to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts; and to live soberly righteously and godly in this present world” (Titus 2:11)
    God loves homosexuals and so do I. He does not love that spirit (yes folks; it is a spirit) It is their choice but I don’t feel that I should be forced to be a part of their lifestyle as they shouldn’t be forced to become Christians.

    Reply
    • Rsim
      Rsim says:

      I don’t know if it’s “a spirit.” The bible does not actually say that does it? But to the rest, I say, Right on!

      Reply
  6. Martin
    Martin says:

    I agree with what has been posted. I am in favor of marriage between man and woman. “The rules that determine whether individuals, families, and cultures will be strong are not made by us, they were made for us. We will either honor them or suffer the consequences of pretending we are the smartest people who ever lived.

    Either way, reality, truth, and marriage (the real kind) will need advocates”.

    Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.