Posted on 10/06/2014 11:52:38 AM PDT by markomalley
Today the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review appeals from Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin on the definition of marriage. This means that lower court rulings that struck down state marriage laws now will go into effect, forcing the redefinition of marriage in these states and potentially in other states in the 4th, 7th, and 10th circuits.
This is an unfortunate setback for sound constitutional self-government and a setback for a healthy marriage culture.
The truth of the matter is that the marriage laws in these five states—as in many states across our nation—are good laws that reflect the truth about marriage. Frequently they were passed with overwhelming democratic support. The Supreme Court should have reviewed these cases and should have upheld the authority of citizens and their elected representatives to make good marriage policy. Instead, the Supreme Court left standing bad rulings from lower federal courts that usurped authority from the people by striking down good laws.
The cases at issue involve lower court rulings that struck down state marriage laws, claiming that they violated the U.S. Constitution. But the courts never provided compelling arguments that laws that reflect the truth about marriage are unconstitutional. Indeed, as former Attorney General Ed Meese and I argued last week in The Washington Post, the Supreme Court should have reviewed these cases and declared the laws constitutional.
In a system of limited constitutional self-government, the people and their elected representatives should be making decisions about marriage policy. And there are reasonable arguments on both sides of this debate. Judges should not insert their own policy preferences about marriage and declare them to be required by the Constitution.
Some people argue that marriage is simply a committed relationship of two people. My co-authors and I have argued that marriage is a comprehensive union of sexually complementary spouses—and that the state cares about marriage because it can unite a man and a woman as husband and wife to be mother and father to any children their union may produce.
A comprehensive union capable of uniting children with their mom and dad is something only a man and a woman can form. So enacting same-sex marriage would not expand the institution of marriage but redefine it. Finishing what policies such as no-fault divorce began, it would finally replace the conjugal view with a revisionist view of marriage as fundamentally an emotional union. This would multiply the marriage revolution’s harms, making them harder than ever to reverse.
Citizens are, of course, free to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships, but so too should citizens be free to retain the historic definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman—as citizens in a majority of states have done. Nothing less than the future of our society and the course of constitutional government in the United States are at stake.
No one can say for certain why the Supreme Court declined to review these cases. Perhaps it is because it is waiting for the 6th Circuit Court to rule on Ohio and Michigan’s marriage laws (a ruling that even many who favor redefining marriage think will uphold those state laws) or perhaps because it is waiting on the 5th Circuit Court to rule on Texas’ and Louisiana’s laws (a federal judge recently upheld Louisiana’s law). Who knows?
Declining to review these cases does not speak one way or the other to the merits of the cases. But it does leave in place bad rulings from lower courts—and it will make it harder for courts to do the right thing in the future.
Nevertheless, as citizens, we must rally in support of our constitutional authority to pass laws making marriage policy. We must insist that law and culture promote the truth about marriage.
SCOTUS has come down on the side of the sodomites. We need to recognize this and understand that, outside of a constitutional amendment, this particular battle is over. Does anybody really think that we can get a groundswell of support sufficient to ensure votes for such an amendment in 38 US states? (Not even discussing the possibility of a 2/3 both Houses of Congress to propose such an amendment...or 2/3 of states to propose a ConCon to consider such an amendment). I'm in favor of such a thing, but, politically, I don't see it happening these days in even 50% of our states, much less the 2/3 to propose and 3/4 to ratify. (I would imagine between 21 and 25 states would want nothing to do with such an amendment)
The next battle will be a requirement for clergy to conduct these perverted unions. Since clergy are authorized to sign official state records (marriage licenses), that leaves a great big gaping hole that some libtard simply needs to jump through to assert that a church marriage is not merely a religious ceremony, but is an extension of a State Government function...and, as such, public accommodation laws must apply. Just a matter of time...
I guess the 10th Amendment doesn’t mean anything anymore.
Screw you. Liberty or death!!
Actually, SCOTUS had no choice: they come in when there is conflict between circuits, and so far, all of the delivered verdicts at the Federal Circuit level have come down FOR Gay Marriage.
The Sixth Circuit is LIKELY to come down against, but hasn’t, and until it does, there is no conflict in interpretations for the Supremes to adjudicate. . .
Surrender monkeys can KMA!!
I guess we are for states’ rights until we are against them.
This is extremely troubling as the Justices have chosen again to be an Activist Supreme Court by abandoning their responsibility to uphold the Constitution and the First and 10th Amendment.
This formerly great country is rapidly turning into nothing more than a wayward chunk of real estate. What made it stand above the rest of the world is essentially gone.
I guess it’s just the normal passage of events... hell, there’s not even a reference to the USA in the book of Revelations.
I agree w/ #7
So where’s Roberts with his “it’s not our job to overturn bad laws” crap?
No doubt.
Republicans running for office want nothing to do with this fight so Dems win by default.
There is no one on OUR side making the convincing arguments why the courts should NOT be ramming this down the states throats.
Billy raised by two mommies?
It is very sad.
If the court ruled water cannot be wet or fire can't burn does that make it so ?
The definition of marriage was decided some 5000 years ago as far as written history goes and this is confirmed by people around the world so who thinks they can redefine it.....This is such arrogance from fools.
Didn’t the courts rule in favor of the LA law barring queer marriage?
One good thing that will come from the ruling is that churches will have to take a stand. Churches that embrace same-sex marriage will force people out of the pews into more conservative churches.
I suspect my church will see a sharp decrease in membership very soon. We have a new pastor who doesn’t know how to keep his politics out of the pulpit.
I don’t think so. The one thing we have discovered is that there isn’t a big demand for same-sex marriage. Right now, it is just a novelty.
BTTT “There is not yet a conflict in the courts to decide.”
But, logic is so much less fun than emotional rants.
On what grounds can you argue that queer marriage is a civil right?
Whatever you use for your argument would also automatically include plural marriage, because you couldn’t exclude bisexuals from marriage, and that means one of each.
Since none of the sodomite unions could result in children, you might as well add animals to the mix.
Don’t try to argue that animals couldn’t consent, the donkeys in those ‘donkey shows’ seem pretty willing!
There is no need for a conflict between the Circuits, for SCOTUS to step in. It can step in any time it is asked, and wants to. It has stepped in when there is no conflict between Circuits, many times.
The courts upheld the LA queer marriage ban.
“NEW ORLEANS - A federal judge has upheld Louisiana’s ban on same-sex marriages, as well as the state’s refusal to recognize gay marriages legally performed in other states.
U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman’s ruling Wednesday broke a string of 20-plus court wins for supporters of same-sex marriage since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year. Feldman said gay marriage supporters failed to prove that the ban violates equal protection or due process provisions of the Constitution.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judge-upholds-louisiana-same-sex-marriage-ban/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.