Supreme Court, Congress, citizens: The debate over who should define marriage
Carolyn Kaster, ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Supreme Court decided to hear and will in the next two weeks issue decisions on two cases that deal with the meaning of marriage in the U.S., and according to Ryan T. Anderson in an article on the Blaze, the government does not have an interest in marriage because it is concerned with the love lives of its citizens, it is interested in marriage “because the act that unites a man and a woman creates new life. And this new life needs and deserves a mother and a father because otherwise, the social costs run high.”
The first case deals with the federal Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, which defines marriage for the purpose of federal law. Passed by Congress and signed by then-President Bill Clinton, it clearly states that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Similarly, the second is about California’s Proposition 8, approved by voters in 2008, defining marriage for state purposes as the union between one man and one woman.
At stake in these two cases is the question of who has the constitutional authority to “make laws that reflect the truth about marriage.”
According to Anderson, “Some have argued that Congress lacks authority to make marriage policy for federal purposes and that it has to accept whatever definition of marriage the states come up with.” In addition, “some try to argue that whats really unconstitutional isnt Congress making this law, but anyone making a law that tells the truth about marriage.”
But in Andersons opinion, “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,” and that “whatever any individual American thinks about marriage, the courts shouldnt be redefining it. Marriage policy should be worked out through the democratic process, not dictated by unelected judges in an activist decision that has no grounding in the text or logic of our Constitution.”
- Jay Evensen: Open wide and swallow your tax...
- Natalie Gochnour: The best of Utah...
- Robert J. Samuelson: Net neutrality could...
- In our opinion: SB296 bridges...
- Dan Liljenquist: Looking to the Supreme Court...
- Letter: Why such controversy?
- In our opinion: Closing the 'discipline gap'...
- George F. Will: IRS continues to act in...
- Bob Bennett: Climate change question... 97
- Letter: Same stale air 48
- My view: Common Core tests erode... 42
- Letter: Mandated freedom 37
- In our opinion: SB296 bridges... 31
- Dan Liljenquist: Looking to the Supreme... 30
- In our opinion: Talking of tax reform... 28
- Letter: Who's against Healthy Utah? 28