The collective wisdom and experience of the human race teaches us that marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation of a vibrant, self-sustaining society. - Ken Connelly
In a recent opinion piece on CNSnews, Alliance Defending Freedom's Ken Connelly coherently outlines why same-sex marriage is not a constitutional right, as well as why the state, up until the 21st century, has supported marriage as a union that can only take place between one man and one woman.
Same-sex marriage is not a fundamental constitutional right. Each and every time the Supreme Court has spoken of the fundamental right to marry, it has done so with the clear understanding that marriage is the relationship of husband and wife. Furthermore, to establish that a right is fundamental from a constitutional perspective, the Supreme Court has required that it be deeply rooted in the nation’s history, a requirement that the proponents of same-sex marriage obviously cannot satisfy.
Man-woman marriage laws are not a violation of equal protection, either. That constitutional doctrine requires the government to treat similar groups similarly. But same-sex couples are not similarly situated to opposite-sex couples with respect to the state’s main reason for being involved in marriage, which is the creation and rearing of children. A man and woman can naturally create children and provide those children with both a mother and a father—same-sex couples cannot. Thus there is no constitutional requirement that they be treated the same in this context.
No matter what one’s conclusion as to the propriety of redefining marriage, it must be said that the resolution of this issue by direct political participation is proper in a democratic republic like ours. For as the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed in Windsor, the states, and by extension the people in those states, have the “essential authority to define the marital relation.”
This clear guidance from the Supreme Court as to the centrality of the people’s will on this issue has not stopped proponents of same-sex marriage from seeking to skip the debate and the legislative process entirely, opting rather to redefine marriage through the courts instead. Unfortunately, many lower federal courts have erroneously concluded that Windsor established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In so doing, these courts have usurped the right of the people to govern themselves.
The full piece is available here. As Connelly has noted, same-sex marriage proponents do not care what marriage truly is, nor do they care about what is best for children. Same-sex marriage is a blatant attack on the family, and an outright affront to American liberties. Strip marriage of the man-woman definition, and you strip all children of an equal chance at a stable family. Try to control the American people’s conscience, and you will see the fighting spirit that built this nation.
Whenever same-sex marriage activists try to shut down debate, or silence opposition, take heart: their violent actions are a testimony to the truth that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.