Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Catholic News

Home

Home
Catholic
Religion News
Scholars: No legal right to ‘gay marriage’ in Constitution

Scholars: No legal right to ‘gay marriage’ in Constitution

Last updated on: April 27, 2015 at 10:28 pm by CNA Daily News

Scholars: No legal right to ‘gay marriage’ in Constitution 2015-04-27T22:28:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Washington D.C., Apr 27, 2015 / 04:28 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- There is no legal right to “gay marriage” in the Constitution, legal experts asserted, and the Supreme Court should not bypass the democratic process and redefine marriage for all 50 states.

“There’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage,” said Ryan Anderson, Ph.D., the William E. Simon senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

“Since there’s good arguments on both sides of this debate, unelected judges shouldn’t simply insert their own policy views about marriage and then declare them required by the Constitution.”

Anderson joined attorney Gene Schaerr, J.D., in discussing state marriage laws at the Heritage Foundation April 20.

The panel discussion came a few days before the April 28 oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, a monumental case that could lead to a nationwide redefinition of marriage.

The legal challenge arises from four marriage cases decided by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in November. In a 2-1 decision, the judges upheld the traditional marriage laws in four states – Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee – claiming the judiciary did not have the power to define marriage and that the decision should be left to the citizens and the state legislatures.

That ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to take the case and decide if same-sex couples have a legal right to marry under the 14th Amendment, or if the states each have the power to define marriage for themselves.

Dozens of amicus briefs were filed for both the plaintiffs and the respondents by individuals, organizations, states, hundreds of businesses, and the U.S. Department of Justice.

There is no right to same-sex marriage in the 14th Amendment or elsewhere in the Constitution, stressed Schaerr, who is a D.C-based attorney who defended Utah’s traditional marriage amendment in the Tenth Circuit Court and once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia.

Schaerr cited Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who earlier ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that “so far, not a single United States Supreme Court Justice in American history has written an opinion maintaining that the traditional definition of marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The 14th Amendment states, in part, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Since there is no Constitutional right to marriage, “a state’s rejection of that claimed right couldn’t possibly be a denial of due process,” Schaerr said.

And such state laws do not deprive citizens of equal protection under the law, he continued. Although there is no legal right to same-sex marriage, people are still free to marry someone of the opposite sex, regardless of their own race, religion, or sexual orientation.

“The argument that there is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation just doesn’t work,” Schaerr continued.

If the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage in response to popular opinion, it could have long-reaching negative consequences that aggravate, not settle, the debate on the matter, Schaerr suggested, saying that this can be seen through Supreme Court history.

When justices tried to solve heated social controversies in the past instead of letting them be solved by the people, the decisions “backfired spectacularly,” he maintained.

“These cases that the Court has before it now are really an attempt to tempt the Court to take away from the people their ordinary right in our Constitutional order to decide difficult policy issues through democratic means.”

As an example, he related how in the 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, the Court decided the pressing social question of legal abortion for the country. Citing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he argued that the ruling “actually provoked a political backlash that is with us to this day.”

Anderson agreed and insisted that the matter should be left up to the states as the “laboratories of democracy,” in the words of the Supreme Court.

If the states can define marriage through the democratic process, he said, people can see first-hand the consequences of changing marriage and decide accordingly, rather than the Court deciding a legal right to “gay marriage” and forcing everyone to wait for the consequences.

“The Supreme Court justices have no better ability than anyone in America to predict what the outcome will be. They’re not a super-legislature,” Anderson said.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that tells us which of those two arguments is the better argument,” he continued. “The Court should respect the Constitutional authority of states to make marriage policy.”

Previous Post

April 27, 2015

The 'theology of the people', according to Pope Francis

Next Post

April 28, 2015 Huff Post editor: 'Why doesn't the Left advocate for persecuted Christians?'

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does 1 Peter say wives can do to win over their unbelieving husbands?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Pray for them constantly Show them love Win them without words by their behavior Share the gospel