America will again wait with baited breath as the Supreme Court hears arguments that could change the makeup of our culture for a very long time. The government has not taken it upon itself to regulate your health care choices, this time, but has taken the first bite of the cultural whale that is gay marriage. Indeed, the nine unelected officials will hear arguments and decide this week whether or not the most ancient and most basic governmental structure of the family can legally define members of the same sex in a committed relationship.
What gives a 237 year old government the right to redefine a social structure that started at creation is rarely discussed and never explained.
And, as with most political/ social "arguments" these days, the choice will come down to bowing to the tug on the heart strings ("Surely, you can't stand in the way of love!) and a rational consideration of the consequences (Will it legitimize bigamy? Is it best for children? Will it interfere with freedom of speech and religion? Will it undermine the family structure? etc.)
Also, while considering California's Proposition 8, the Court will have the troubling opportunity to accept or reject the legitimate vote of the citizens on whether there is any such thing as "gay marriage." Will our elevated and supremely wise judges accept the will of the people or impose their own? Will the people be allowed to think for themselves on important issues or will the big decisions have to be made by paternal judges who just have our best interest in mind.
Michael McConell discusses this in his column on the subject: "The system today, without the Supreme Court's intervention, is working as it should. Representatives of the people are deliberating. "We the People" are thinking. So far, nine states have extended marriage to same-sex couples; many others have chosen to explicitly endorse traditional marriage. Those choices distress advocates on either side of the matter when their wishes have been disappointed.
But when all of us have an equal right to be heard on an issue, and to participate through our representatives in making the decision, it is easier to accept the outcome than when unelected judges make moral pronouncements from the bench. Change that comes through the political process has greater democratic legitimacy…
If the justices hold that California's Proposition 8, which provides that "only marriage between a woman and a man is valid or recognized," is unconstitutional, this will end the deliberations and impose a single national definition of marriage on us all. The court cannot reach this outcome without branding the views of the other side as either "irrational," if it employs the lower, rational-basis level of judicial scrutiny, or "bigoted" and hateful, which would justify heightened judicial scrutiny. That is not the path to national reconciliation, and it does not show respect to the diverse views on this divisive issue."
The other decision regarding gay marriage which will be debated this week is the constitutional legitimacy of the Defense of Marriage Act which, contrary to popular belief, does not enshrine the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, but simply protects the individual states' rights to decide for themselves.
It is easy to see how both of these decisions could have huge ramifications on society. The Prop 8 decision will exhibit whether the court will bow to the power of the citizenry and the DOMA decision will reveal exactly how centralized governmental power has become.
The decisions will have an even more dramatic effect on our family structures. Recent studies, in spite of slander from the homosexual movement, have confirmed that children do much better with both a mother and a father. That is, after all, the sole reason for the states' involvement in marriage. Marriage, as opposed to a dating relationship, receives the blessing of the state because, historically, it was marriage that produced children and thus made up the bricks that make society. The state's purpose in marriage is not to affirm the romantic feelings of a couple; it is to incentivize stable homes for the next generation. Or, that is what it is supposed to do.
As Helen Alvare, a law professor who filed an Amicus Brief supporting marriage to the Supreme Court, noted: "As redefined by Plaintiffs, marriage would merely become a reparation, a symbolic capstone, and a personal reward, not a gateway to adult responsibilities, including childbearing, childrearing, and the inculcating of civic virtues in the next generation for the benefit of the larger society."
And as the Ryan T. Anderson and Kayla Griesemer at the Heritage Institute explain, "Alvare argues that the consequences of an “adult-centered understanding of marriage” have disproportionally harmed the most disadvantaged, leading to marriage being treated as a “luxury good” beyond the reach of the less privileged. The children of less-privileged groups are less likely to live with both parents, more likely to be pregnant out of wedlock, and are less likely to obtain higher education or employment. Family structure changes, such as increasing numbers of single-parent households and cohabitation, explain 41 percent of the increase in income inequality between 1976 and 2000, according to a study by Penn State sociologist Molly Martin.
There are many informative and well-written pieces on the affects of the Supreme Court's decisions this week, as well as reasons why traditional marriage should be upheld. Here are a few that I found that clearly explain the debate.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/22/marriage-has-a-role-in-raising-children-reducing-poverty/
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343821/beware-science-same-sex-marriage-kathryn-jean-lopez
Please join us in praying that our God would touch the minds of our judges and give them His wisdom. His will be done. Either way, ADA and organizations like us will be here to fight the good fight and uphold God's standard.
Click Here to hear an episode of Bill Johnson's radio program, A Decency Minute
Call us:
231-924-4050Email us:
info@americandecency.orgWrite us:
American Decency AssociationCopyright 2024 American Decency
