"Marriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. 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. . . .
Thus stated Sixth Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey Sutton in yesterday’s extraordinary federal court decision upholding the ban on gay marriage in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee – leaving in place marriage amendments in these four states.
In a 2-1 ruling lauded by conservative and religious leaders, the Sixth Circuit Court bucked other federal court decisions where rogue judges have imposed gay marriage in dozens of states against the will and vote of the American people.
In state after state – where large majorities of citizens had voted to affirm the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman – we have seen judges unilaterally usurp the power of the people and strike down these voter-approved marriage amendments.
That is until yesterday’s ruling of the Sixth Circuit Court.
Not only is this Sixth Circuit Court decision a stunning victory as it upholds the people’s vote to affirm the definition of marriage in the four states mentioned above, the majority opinion written by Justice Jeffrey Sutton lays out a reasoned, common-sense and eloquent statement establishing that such a monumental decision as redefining the institution of marriage, which has spanned all of human history, is not something that should be taken lightly or be decided upon by three judges – but rather by the people of the states these judges serve.
As Judge Sutton forcefully asserts:
“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.”
Judge Sutton continues with this astute reasoning:
"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?"
“… Surely the people should receive some deference in deciding when the time is ripe to move from one picture of marriage to another.”
While some liberal judges have concluded that traditional marriage laws are “irrational,” Sutton declared: “A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the States. . . . It is not society's laws or for that matter any one religion's laws, but nature's laws (that men and women complement each other biologically), that created the policy imperative [of marriage law].”
Sutton affirmed the unique role of marriage and the need for government to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman to “create and maintain stable relationships within which children may flourish.”
As Sutton wrote in the majority opinion:
“Imagine a society without marriage. It does not take long to envision problems that might result from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effects of male-female intercourse: children. May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is responsible for the children that result?”
“That does not convict the States of irrationality, only of awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children in the same way as couples of opposite sexes and that couples of the same sex do not run the risk of unintended offspring.”
Sutton also made the point that we at American Decency and many others have argued: legalizing homosexual marriage doesn’t just “redefine” marriage, it renders the institution meaningless – opening the door to polygamy and any such non-monogamous grouping of individuals who want the title “marriage.”
Sutton contends:
“If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage.”
Sutton’s ruling statement in this case lays out such a reasoned defense of natural marriage, Gary Bauer suggests, “Judge Jeffrey Sutton's opinion should be required reading in the Oval Office and every law school across the country. He comes down squarely on the side of the people and, most notably, against the notion of judicial activism. Sutton's opinion exposes how the left has perverted our justice system.”
What is also noteworthy as we look at this momentous ruling is the fact that elections matter. Of the three judge panel making this decision, the two ruling in favor of natural marriage were George W. Bush appointees. The one dissenting judge was a Clinton appointee.
Voting – or not voting – has an impact. Elections have consequences. We have already seen the havoc wreaked by federal and Supreme Court appointees of President Obama.
This battle for marriage is not over. This decision will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which will be compelled to rule definitively – will judges or the people be the ones to decide whether or not the institution of marriage, as ordained at creation, stand or be replaced with a twisted imitation.
In any case, no matter how any man-made court rules or a vote of the people decides regarding this issue – true followers of Christ cannot and will not bend to the ‘redefinition’ of the union God created and called “very good.”
To support our efforts please click here or mail your gift to American Decency Association (ADA), PO Box 202, Fremont, MI 49412.
American Decency Association is a member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability.
photo credit: Bert Palmer via photopin cc
Call us:
231-924-4050Email us:
info@americandecency.orgWrite us:
American Decency AssociationCopyright 2024 American Decency
