Why would the government concern itself with
marriage? According to the Defense of
Marriage Act, enacted in 1996, one of the primary purposes of government
getting involved in the marriage debate at all is that, “At bottom, civil society has an interest
in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because
it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and
child-rearing. Simply put, government has an interest in marriage because it
has an interest in children.”
Children raised by their biological mother and father
fare much better on every social science standard that has been studied. The health of our society is determined by
the health (emotional, physical and intellectual) of the rising
generation. Their ability to succeed is
largely determined by the way they were raised.
Katy Faust, an adult mother who
was raised by her mother and homosexual partner said in an amicus brief to the
supreme court, “…, when it comes to procreation and
child-rearing, same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are wholly unequal and
should be treated differently for the sake of the children.
When two adults who
cannot procreate want to raise children together, where do those babies come
from? Each child is conceived by a mother and a father to whom that child has a
natural right. When a child is placed in a same-sex-headed household, she will
miss out on at least one critical parental relationship and a vital dual-gender
influence. The nature of the adults’ union guarantees this. Whether by adoption,
divorce, or third-party reproduction, the adults in this scenario satisfy their
heart’s desires, while the child bears the most significant cost: missing out
on one or more of her biological parents.
Making policy that
intentionally deprives children of their fundamental rights is something that
we should not endorse, incentivise, or promote.
According to Ryan T. Anderson, the author of Truth
overruled, there are two views of marriage.
The Consenting view which views marriage as the deep emotional bonds between
two people regardless of their gender or the Comprehensive view of marriage
which has been the view of marriage since the beginning of time. That view is that marriage is a unique
relationship between a man and a woman who are bound to each other and to the
children they will produce through the sexual union of those two people. The marriage binds not only the parents to
each other, but the offspring they produce to the parents.
While the comprehensive view of marriage has been
accepted by all societies for millennia, we had 5 lawyers decide that it was
time for our society to change, but not on the grounds of liberty and democracy. They circumvented democracy because the
majority of our states had decided democratically that the definition should
not be changed, because these five people decided that they knew better than
what has stood the test of time, the fundamental meaning of the marriage
relationship has been legally changed. They chose to circumvent our democratic
process and as an extension, our liberty.
The role of the judiciary is to determine if laws are
constitutional. Our constitution says
nothing about marriage nor does it say anything about personal
relationships. The majority of cases
that have been decided by the supreme court were about how the government
should stay out of the personal relationships of the citizenry. Except in this case where the majority of the
justices have decided that it is their right to decide what a marriage
relationship should be.
IN addition to changing the definition of marriage,
they have decided that the religious convictions of those who take the
comprehensive view of marriage and want to uphold their right to believe in
marriage between a man and a woman as being demeaning to same sex couples and
stigmatizing them. Justice Roberts in
his dissenting opinion said, “These apparent assaults on the character of
fairminded people will have an effect, in society and in court. See post, at
6–7 (ALITO, J., dissenting). Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous. It is one
thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to
same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share
the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted.
With the courts opinion of religious minded people as
bigoted, when the inevitable conflicts arise between same sex couples and those
who hold their religious views as protected, it will be difficult to see if the
court can uphold the 1st amendment after overstepping its authority so
completely in this case.