Gay Marriage and Supreme Court What You Need to Know
***************
As
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito pointed out two years ago,
there are two different visions of what marriage is on offer. One view of marriage sees it as primarily about consenting adult romance and care-giving. Another view of marriage sees it as a union of man and woman—husband and wife—so that children would have moms and dads.
Our Constitution is silent on which of these visions is correct, so We the People have constitutional authority to make marriage policy.
The debate over whether
to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships is unlike the debate over interracial marriage. Race has absolutely nothing to do with marriage, and there were no reasonable arguments ever suggesting it did....
Laws that banned interracial marriage were unconstitutional and the Court was right to strike them down. But laws that define marriage as the union of a man and woman are constitutional, and the Court shouldn’t strike them down.
The only way the Court could strike down state laws that define marriage as the union of husband and wife is to adopt a view of marriage that sees it as an essentially genderless institution based primarily on the emotional needs of adults and then declare that the Constitution requires that the states (re)define marriage in such a way...
Equal protection alone is not enough. To strike down marriage laws, the Court would need to say that the vision of marriage that our law has long applied equally is just wrong: that the Constitution requires a different vision entirely.
But the Constitution does not require a new vision of marriage...
Everyone in this debate is in favor of marriage equality. Everyone wants the law to treat all marriages in the same ways.
The only disagreement our nation faces is over what sort of consenting adult relationship is a marriage. Since the U.S. Constitution doesn’t answer that question, the people and their elected representative should...
Marriage exists to bring
a man and a woman together as husband and wife, to be father and mother to any children their union produces. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.
Marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other—and to take responsibility for their children.
Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.
*************
What the SCOTUS just did was to tell the states "we know what's best for children and you are no longer able to weigh in on that question." Considering the potential for how children are raised over a couple of generations, it is UNFATHOMABLE that just 5 people in DC took away that decision from the Governed and acted like kings and queens. They litereally changed the fundamental fabric of our country, without Constitutional provisions, using an unworkable new standard "
Just some of our favorite behaviors are now allowed to fundamentally redefine marriage to the detriment of children; and even the meaning of the words "mother" and "father"....while leaving the question open for polygamy and incest to also tell the Governed to shove-it; since in the interest now of equality and the new standard of "the interest of kids in marriage doesn't matter SAYS WE 5", one deviant sex behavior is as good as another as long as the adults are consenting.
The trouble is, this isn't a judicial interpretation of the Constitution; because if it was, it would've HAD TO include language covering any and all deviant sex behaviors, not just the Court's contemporary favorites. Leaving the others out and knowing they were on their way to their Courtroom in the very near future (The Browns v Utah), means that the Court did not interpret anything from the Constitution that can be pointed to. In other words, they just made up a botched mock-up of a new class without actually having the authority to do so. On behavior is as good as another and another and another. The majority no longer has a say so...apparently...and that is NOT a Constitutional provision. In fact, it's the exact opposite of what's in the Constitution. What are local laws about if not about human behaviors? Do we now not self-govern? Which behaviors are "the favorites" and which arent'? Who determines that if the yardstick of majority-approval has been removed? Forever forward, just 5 people on the Supreme Court will now weigh the question of which behavior can no longer be regulated?
Therefore, the Constitution has been fundamentally altered. Therefore the Ruling on June 26, 2015 is inapplicable to the states.
