But now the 6th Circuit has stopped that court
overreach and made a helpful explanation. Two things come out of this:
· The court delineates a number of reasons that a
state might choose to keep the millennia-old definition (there is a rational
basis).
· The court points out the limits of the judiciary,
particularly declining to force federal law changes on states, where the
Constitution hasn’t explicitly required such changes.
Now that there is a split, the Supreme Court has an
undeniable reason to take up the issue. If I understand correctly, the cases
for the 2014-2015 session are already on the docket. The growing list of
same-sex “marriage” cases, then, cannot be taken up until the 2015-2016
session, which would probably be decided in June 2016.
In the meantime, there is a hodgepodge of states required to
allow same-sex “marriages,” alongside states which are allowed to refrain from
granting them or recognizing them from other states. When the Supreme Court
refused to take up the cases this year, in the absence of a circuit court
split, they knew such confusion would ensue. But they were willing to ignore
that in favor of waiting until the most appropriate time. I hope that was the
wiser decision in the long run.
This ruling says a number of helpful, hopeful things. It’s
quite beautifully written. Here’s a sample from the opening:
So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not
centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been
adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.
This is,
unfortunately, couched within an assumption that societal change is coming. But
it declines usurping power to bring it on:
What remains is a debate about whether
to allow the democratic processes begun in the States to continue in the four
States of the Sixth Circuit or to end them now by requiring all States in the
Circuit to extend the definition of marriage to encompass gay couples. Process
and structure matter greatly in American government. Indeed, they may be the
most reliable, liberty assuring guarantees of our system of government,
requiring us to take seriously the route the United States Constitution
contemplates for making such a fundamental change to such a fundamental social
institution.
Of all the ways to resolve this
question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this
panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a
good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of
authority, one that would allow just three of us—just two of us in truth—to
make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within
the four States of the Sixth Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.
What we have authority to decide instead is a legal question: Does the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit a State from
defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman?
The
pertinent portion of the Fourteenth Amendment says,
No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
So the
plaintiffs—those requiring states to throw out their traditional definition of
marriage—are claiming they’re being denied equal protection. It seems obvious,
to me, that they have not been denied. No one has said homosexual individuals can’t
marry—enter into a marriage contract as any other American would—a permanent
contract with a member of the opposite sex, who is not married to someone else,
and who is not a close relative.
Same-sex
couples are not individuals who are “banned” from marrying. What is actually
happening is that they are requiring all of society to throw out the definition
of marriage and make some new one that includes same-sex couples—and possibly
also any other coupling that any individuals desire.
The 6th
Circuit has refrained from voicing personal opinion on this redefinition
debate. This restraint is too rare. And it is a great relief in the ongoing
onslaught against the definition of marriage.
Ryan
Anderson, at The Heritage Institute, as always explains the issue with clarity.
He pulls out the pertinent quotes, so I recommend his piece, "No ConstitutionalRight to Same-Sex Marriage, Circuit Court Rules.”
Language is
important. That’s true in discussing issues, and in rulings within the written
law. So, do we know what marriage is?
For most of
human history it has been a legal contract between a man and a woman, requiring
permanence and fidelity—for the benefit of family, which is the basic unit of society, in which civilization is continued from generation to generation.
Governments
didn’t start marriage; God started marriage, in the Garden of Eden. A long time
before any existing government. Where governments are concerned, as with other
contracts, they’re concerned with the keeping of the terms. So it’s important
to know the definition of the terms. The Supreme Court and various courts—now including
the 6th Circuit—allow states to define the term. Regardless of the
temporary confusion, marriage is a legally understood term.
Marriage simply is what it is: a
permanent promise between a man and a woman to engage exclusively with each
other in heterosexual sex, which can lead to offspring and therefore form a
family. Fathers know who their offspring are, and feel obligated, therefore, to
stay connected and provide. Love is nice but not required in the keeping of the
contract. Other sexual acts are not necessarily condemned, but are simply not
at issue in marriage. Only one type of sexual act is of interest.
So, if there
is to be a debate about change, it ought to be an open discussion. It’s not
about whether society is prejudiced against same-sex couples; nature has set up
that prejudice. Same-sex couples simply cannot participate in the act that is
required for marriage. Indeed, couples who marry and then have a spouse who
fails to engage in that act can have the contract nullified. It’s fraudulent to
promise to marry and then fail to consummate the marriage in the particular
act. It doesn’t matter if the couple “loves” each other, or enjoys sharing a
domicile, or thinks it might be a good idea to adopt a child. Failure to keep
the marriage contract is grounds for annulment or divorce.
The
existence of same-sex couples who want to be honored for their current
relationship certainly isn’t grounds for changing the definitions.
Parties
involved in claiming discrimination ought to be required to prove one of these
things:
· Prove that they can and will engage in the act
required in marriage, to make the contract legal.
· Or prove that their relationship is equivalently
good for civilization as marriage has been.
They cannot
do the first. They have not done the second. They cannot produce children. In
every case same-sex-parented “families” have children not produced by the
couple. Not because one or the other is infertile, but because same-sex
coupling cannot be fruitful. This is obvious to anyone who has even a very
basic understanding of biological reproduction.
Same-sex couples try to claim their parenting is equivalently good. Individual
cases may be adequate, but they have not proven equivalence as likely. Most
studies compare same-sex parenting to single parented families—which are
statistically inferior to married parent families in every measure. Some recent
studies are showing that, additionally, same-sex parents lead to a higher
likelihood of gender confusion in children.
Additionally,
unlike the vast majority of traditional marriages, same-sex marriages fail, in
extremely high percentages, to be exclusive or permanent.
There is no
advantage to society leading to honor for same-sex couples. The debate must be
turned from whether it’s nice or not to “ban” same-sex “marriage” [something
can’t be banned if it never existed], and turned instead to whether throwing
out the long-standing definition is better for society because same-sex couples
make some significant civilizing contribution.
While last
week’s ruling was hopeful, it’s only a limited victory. It merely refrained
from usurping authority in the redefinition, but it practically admits defeat
in society’s eventual change. It’s possible that the wording is designed to
give the swing vote, Kennedy, persuasion to refrain from imposing the
definition change. But, personally, I prefer truth, clarity, and allegiance to
ultimate good, rather than trusting to strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment