Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation was inside SCOTUS yesterday to hear the oral arguments about same-sex marriage.
Here is a clip:
Oral arguments at the Supreme Court today were fascinating. Over two and a half hours of discussion about whether the Constitution requires all 50 states to treat same-sex relationships as marriages highlighted one essential truth: There are good policy arguments on both sides of the marriage debate and the Constitution doesn’t take sides in it.
Last year, the 6th Circuit Court ruled that the state marriage laws in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky—all democratically defining marriage as the union of husband and wife—were good law. The 6th Circuit ruled that these state marriage laws did not violate the Constitution. Earlier today, lawyers on both sides of that question presented their best arguments to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court should conclude that the 6th Circuit got it right: The Constitution does not require the redefinition of marriage.
After all, the nine justices on the Supreme Court do not have a crystal ball. They cannot predict whether redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will strengthen marriage or weaken marriage. They cannot predict whether it will be good for children or bad for children. They heard arguments on both sides of these questions—and the Constitution doesn’t tell them what the future will hold.
3 Comments. Leave new
There’s no way the SCOTUS should have accepted this case in the first place. Presidents shove Supreme Court justices down our throats. Elections have consequences. It could be weeks or months before we know the outcome; it the meantime we pray and keep a closer eye on ’16 presidential contenders.
Mr. Anderson makes the key point: The Constitution does not require the redefinition of marriage. Period. That is the ONLY issue the court should address. The rest of it is irrelevant and should play no part in the court’s deliberations.
Could the Supreme Court “order” a local church Session to authorize a same sex marriage? I wonder. This could be a classic church vs state case.