Supreme Court Did Not ReDefine Marriage!

00Regardless of what you hear or read about from either side of the aisle, the Supreme Court decisions in the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases leaves the marriage debate alive and kicking.

Technically there was no winner.  Obama had already declared DOMA unconstitutional and the Justice Department refused to defend it in court.   All the Supreme Court did was legalize Obama’s decision.

By striking down the  DOMA law,  the Supreme Court says that the Federal government must  recognize same-sex marriage in all states where it has been approved.  It does not give the Federal government power to force the balance of states to adopt same-sex marriage laws.

By siding with Obama, the Court also failed to acknowledge that just as states have the constitutional authority to make law and policy about marriage, Congress also has that constitutional authority to define the term in federal law.

As far as Proposition 8, the Court said that citizens should no longer expect their elected officials to give a damn about what they want.   Because the governor and attorney general refused to defend voters choice in passing Proposition 8, the Court declared that government of the people, by the people, and for the people is no longer possible.  It is now the responsibility of California voters to make certain these people never hold office again.

All marriage laws in all fifty states (57 if you’re part of the Obama administration) remain the same – nothing changed.  Section 2 of DOMA still stands therefore, no state will be forced  to recognize another state’s redefinition of marriage.

The vast majority of state laws still define marriage as between one man and one woman.  These states will become the new battle ground for homosexual activists, aided and abetted by Obama and his Justice Department.

Traditional marriage does matter.   Many  mistakenly believe that allowing same-sex marriage is just adding to new separate form of marriage to coexist alongside traditional marriage.  However, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal issues involved.

What is really at stake are two complete definitions of marriage.  One definition advocated by gay marriage activists would redefine marriage as the union of any two people regardless of gender, with the law treating the parties’ genders as irrelevant to the meaning of marriage.   The other definition is that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Under the law, one definition of marriage could not exist alongside the other. Only one of the competing definitions would legally exist.  A Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy review noted that “. . .once the judiciary or legislature adopts the union of any two persons as the legal definition of civil marriage, that conception becomes the sole definitional basis for the only legal sanctioned marriage that any couple can enter into, whether same-sex or man-woman.  Legally sanctioned genderless marriage, rather than peacefully coexist with traditional one man-one woman marriage, actually displaces and replaces it.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

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