The Sixth Circuit concluded that “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. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point.” Just so. And for that reason too, a challenge to state male–female marriage laws cannot properly invoke the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Animus. Although a couple of Supreme Court decisions have relied upon the concept of “animus” in invalidating on equal-protection grounds state laws that impinged upon the interests of gays and lesbians, anyone with passing familiarity with the history of marriage knows that the institution did not arise because of animus toward gays and lesbians. Ancient thinkers as well as the political society in Greece and Rome, without being influenced by Judeo–Christian teaching, affirmed that marriage is a male–female union even as they embraced same-sex sexual relations.
The only way someone could succeed in such an argument is to adopt a view of marriage that sees it as an essentially genderless institution based only on the emotional needs of adults and then declare that the U.S. Constitution requires that the states (re)define marriage in such a way. Equal protection alone is not enough. To strike down marriage laws, the Court would need to say that the vision of marriage that our law has long applied equally is just wrong: that the Constitution requires a different vision entirely.
The U.S. Constitution, however, is silent on what marriage is and what policy goals the states should design it to serve, and there are good policy arguments on both sides. Judges should not insert their own policy preferences about marriage and declare them to be required by the U.S. Constitution any more than the Justices in Dred Scott should have written into the Constitution their own policy preferences in support of slavery.
That, of course, is not to suggest that same-sex marriage is itself comparable to slavery. The point is simply that, as in Dred Scott, this is a debate about whether citizens or judges will decide an important and sensitive policy issue—in this case, the very nature of civil marriage.
Addressing the lobby's concern over Obama's perceived lack of zeal indismantling federal marriage laws and other such issues, Obama said Saturday:"I also appreciate that many of you don't believe progress has come fastenough. I want to be honest about that, because it's important to be honestamong friends."
"We agree that every student should be protected from bullying and harassment," she said, "and that no student should be hurt or ridiculed, no matter who they are or what they believe. But parents need to be aware that the Day of Silence unnecessarily politicizes and sexualizes the school environment, paving the way for classroom lessons that advocate and normalize things like same-sex marriage and cross-dressing."
The President's remarks reflect his statements whilecampaigning for the presidency last year, when, despite asserting that hebelieved marriage was "between a man and a woman," he simultaneouslysupported various aspects of the homosexual agenda. Similarly, in hisspeech Saturday, President Obama expressed warm support for granting homosexuals"the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple inthis country," while not specifically mentioning whether such couplesshould be granted the title of marriage.
The document potentially lowers the age of sexual consent to 15 years bydictating that "youth have the right to freely choose a partner, to commonlife and to the constitution of marriage on the ground of equality among itsmembers" in article 20. Adolescents at the age of 15 will also have theright to choose their own religion and to vote, according to articles 17 and 21.
Following this vote, the will propose ways to enable the recognition of the effects ofpartnerships and marriages throughout the EU, regardless of whether they unitesame-sex or different-sex partners. . . . .
On Tuesday the European Parliament reaffirmed that the effects of civildocuments (birth and death certificates, marriage certificates, etc.) mustremain the same throughout the European Union. This implies that all couples,including same-sex couples in marriages or civil partnerships must retain theirrights in all EU countries.
Currently same-sex couples often lose the rights given by their existingmarriage or civil partnership when travelling in the European Union.
The province's highest court ruled that two proposals from the Saskatchewan government that would let marriage commissioners opt out of performing same-sex marriages on religious grounds would be unconstitutional.
This angered evangelist preacher and activist Charles McVety, a longtimecrusader against same-sex marriage, abortion and homosexuality. Mr. McVetylaunched a campaign on the Institute for Canadian Values website, under theheadline Conservatives Announce New Program to Fund Sex Parades. . .