The future of the institution of marriage in the United States will be determined in large part this summer when the U.S. Supreme Court issues a landmark ruling on the subject of same-sex unions.
The High Court has agreed to hear appeals of a decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the traditional marriage laws of the states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The Court will review lawsuits filed by homosexual "couples" demanding that marriage be redefined to include same-sex relationships.
In agreeing to hear the appeals, the justices announced that they will render a definitive ruling on two questions: 1) Whether the 14th Amendment requires that states issue "marriage" licenses to two persons of the same sex; and 2) Whether the 14th Amendment requires states to recognize "marriages" between persons of the same sex licensed and performed in another state.
In its decision, the 6th Circuit panel ruled convincingly that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
does not mandate the radical transformation of the meaning, nature, and purpose of marriage. Writing for the majority, Judge Jeffery Sutton
authored a scholarly opinion citing centuries of federal case law that domestic relations and family law are the virtually exclusive province of the states.
"From the founding of the Republic to 2003, every state defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman...," Judge Sutton wrote. "Nobody in this case argues that the people who adopted the 14th Amendment understood it to require the states to change the definition of marriage."
This is a point we have often made. There is not a single member of Congress who voted to adopt the 14th Amendment who understood its language to mandate so-called same-sex "marriage." There is likewise not a single legislator from the several states who ratified the 14th Amendment who understood the Equal Protection
Clause to incorporate the perversion of the institution of marriage.
Judge Sutton also took issue with the thoroughly faulty legal concept that there is no "rational basis" for the longstanding definition of marriage. "By creating the status of marriage and by subsidizing it, the states created an incentive for two people who procreate together to stay together for purposes of rearing offspring. That does not convict the state of irrationality, but only of awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children in the same way as couples of opposite sexes..."
The legal integrity of the 6th Circuit ruling stood in stark contrast to the corrupt jurisprudence of decisions issued by the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th federal Appeals Courts. In each of those circuits, renegade federal judges mandated so-called same-sex "marriage" on the states in their jurisdictions, ignoring U.S. Supreme Court precedent in favor of self-ordained "doctrinal developments."
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on the merits of any of those decisions, in an apparent collective decision to allow the redefinition of marriage to occur at the hands of lower courts without their direct affirmation. The 6th Circuit decision, however, creates a canyon-like conflict between the appellate courts which the High Court must now reconcile. The Justices will likely hear oral arguments in April and release a ruling in late June.