Posted on 04/21/2015 9:19:37 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments next Tuesday on whether states will continue to be free to define marriage for their own citizens, a number of amicus briefs have been filed arguing that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.
Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Ryan Anderson and prominent attorney and constitutional law expert Gene Schaerr recently co-authored their own amicus brief that asserts that the U.S. Constitution does not require states to redefine marriage to allow for two individuals of the same gender to get married.
Speaking at a Heritage Foundation discussion on Monday, Anderson and Schaerr, a former associate counsel to President George H.W. Bush, explained their brief in detail and offered more reasons as to why the Supreme Court should not force a decision in favor of same-sex marriage on all 50 states to uphold as law.
Anderson, who co-authored the book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, explained that governments did not originally get into the "marriage business" because they wanted to be involved in their citizens' romances. Rather, state governments got involved in marriage so that the children who were born from marriages would have the best chance of having a stable family environment to grow up in, which included both a mom and dad.
"There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage," Anderson asserted. "The Constitution is simply silent on whether the consent-based vision of marriage or the comprehensive vision of marriage is the true definition of marriage. It is silent on whether the states should devise their marriage policy to serve."
Schaerr discredited a notion that a person has a constitutional right to get married to the person they love as long as they are two consenting adults.
"The bottom line is … there has never been any right to marry the person you love and so a states' rejection of that claimed right couldn't possibly be a denial of due process under the plain language of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," Schaerr asserted. "If we turn to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the argument that same-sex marriage is based on, that clause also has holes in it."
Schaerr also discredited a widely portrayed notion that bans on same-sex marriage are discriminatory against gays and lesbians.
"Unlike the old Jim Crow laws that prohibited mix-raced marriages, the man-woman definition of marriage doesn't offend the equal protection guarantee because it allows any otherwise qualified man and woman to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation," Schaerr said.
"The state man-woman marriage laws do not deny anybody the ability to marry based on their sexual orientation. There is no question on the marriage application that asks are you gay or lesbian," Schaerr continued. "The law doesn't care. The law just says that there are certain requirements for marriage and if you are willing to comply with those requirements, then we will give you a marriage license."
Anderson argues that redefining marriage as a union between two consenting adults would have drastic societal consequences.
"If you redefine marriage to say that it is the union of any two consenting adults, irrespective of sexual complementarity, how will we as a community insist that fathers are essential when the laws redefine marriage to make fathers optional?" Anderson asks. "That is the challenge that faces the society that redefines marriage as consenting-adult romance and care-giving. It eliminates the public message of marriage as about uniting a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mom and a dad."
With unelected federal judges overturning a number of states' gay marriage bans in the last year and many people thinking the Supreme Court could do the same a national level, Anderson said that just because the court has the power of judicial review, that does not mean the Supreme Court reigns supreme.
"I think it is important here to say that judicial review is not the same thing as judicial supremacy," Anderson said. "The Supreme Court is not supreme. Judicial supremacy is a problem when it claims to be the only branch of government that has the obligation the defend and uphold the Constitution. All branches of government, the three federal branches and the state governments, take that oath to defend the Constitution. All branches of government are co-equal in interpreting what the Constitution means."
Although many are confident that at least five justices will rule in favor same-sex marriage, Schaerr explained that no Supreme Court justice has ever written an opinion that held that there is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to get married.
"In fact, there are three justices that have written or have joined opinions that clearly say there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage and Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in the Windsor case goes at least half way there," Schaerr stated. "So as of right now, in terms of Supreme Court Justices, its three-and-a-half on our side and nobody who's committed to recognizing a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
But if one state bans homo-marriage doesn't the same principle apply that all states must ban?
Or the simple legal decision that a heterosexual woman who puts the kid up for adoption to a two parent family so the kid has a mom and dad can’t contest the kid going to two women.
Let me say up front that I don't think gay marriage is an equal protection issue, and that the court should not rule to compel states to accept it. But this question about how can the 14th mean something the adopters never considered is worth answering.
It happens all the time that a law is applied to facts that weren't considered before. Especially in the case of something like the 14th, which encoded a very general concept into the Constitution, the rule set up by a law can be applied to many sets of facts. What the legislators thought about at the time is not what matters. What the text of the rule they established says is what matters. The only time intent is an issue is when the text isn't clear and may be read more than one way.
To simplify, if I'm the original drafters I may want to make a law to protect ex-slaves so I make one that says everyone must be treated equally. But once I make that law that's what it says. Everyone must be treated equally. Not just slaves, and not just about discrimination against blacks. If I wanted something more narrow then I need to write it more narrowly.
Not true. States with laws against SS marriage have refused to recognize them. Several SS couples have gotten married in SS states then tried to get a divorce in hetero states and have been told that their marriage is not recognized therefore to go back to the state they came from to get a divorce.
Exactly.
God created, defined, and instituted marriage at the beginning of the Creation.
Neither the federal government, nor the states, nor any man, has any legitimate authority to redefine it.
That's an odd question. My answer is: No. No it does not.
And no matter WHAT the Supreme Court, or anyone else says, I will not divorce my wife and marry a man.
Think of it as "taking one for the team"...
It shouldn’t. But I suspect the Supreme Court will say it does.
” Will Kennedy and the four liberal Dems on the court force gay marriage on the states?
And if so will any states pass laws that defy the order? “
Great questions
That’s what I think will happen, for mostly the same reason. The rest of the reason being that not enough of the SC even actively opposes it, on any ground, and enough of them actively support it, and will always vote ideologically.
wonder if that strategy could apply to the second ammendment
Thanks!
I was fixing to raise the same point!
Why is the legal argument not a 10th Ammendment one?
I believe that. I think I was answering a different question (my mistake), that being how do states handle the young and "inter-family" marriages that are outside of the criteria for marriage in their state.
The interstate handling of homo marriage/divorce issues will probably be litigated for a generation or three before the (legal) dust settles.
No. The full faith principle is that other states are bound to recognize the actions, not the prohibitions or conditions. See for example the age and consent limits for getting married - which are somewhat variable among the states, with no demand for uniformity. But, once married in one state, the condition of marriage (at least the form that has been normal and common for a couple thousand years) is recognized in all the states.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
He voted against Hagel, while "true conservative" Rand Paul voted FOR Hagel.
"Tea Party" groups seem to suffer amnesia about that.
“They recognize the marriage as valid. Full faith and credit applies (Article IV).”
I don't think that is true in all states, at least in the case of first-cousin marriages.
The 10A merely stated a truth. The states as independent countries relinquished certain powers to the government of their creation, most notably those in Article I Section 10. They obviously kept that which they didn't give away.
The states would have given away very little, had the constitution not provided for a senate of the states. The senate was the institution to enforce the 10th.
<>Was the 10th Amendment repealed?<>
The 17A effectively repealed the 10A.
I just did some reading on how states have traditionally handled marriage, and concluded that my original answer was wrong. States applied “conflict of laws” principles to marriage, taking precedence over full faith and credit.
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.