In a decision that stunned and pleased traditional marriage supporters in September, a federal judge ruled that Louisiana’s law affirming marriage as the union between one man and one woman is constitutional.
No less pleasing, but perhaps more stunning, is a decision handed down yesterday. The Sixth Circuit ruled 2-1 that laws affirming marriage as the union between one man and one woman in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee could stand, reversing lower court rulings.
The court contended that the question of whether marriage should be redefined is not an issue for judges to resolve.
“Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us—just two of us in truth—to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four States of the Sixth Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. What we have authority to decide instead is a legal question: Does the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit a State from defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman?”
If any group has the authority to change the definition of marriage, it is the people; however, even if the government recognizes homosexual “marriage,” that union is not marriage in the God-given or the traditional sense of the word. Rather than using the term civil union, homosexuals want to co-opt the term marriage in a not-so-subtle attempt to coerce approval (not mere tolerance) of a lifestyle that deviates from normal sexuality. No matter how much or how loudly they deny it, that is the reality. It’s worth noting that the more ground they conquer, the less religious freedom we have.
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling could be a game-changer. Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said the decision “gives greater certainty that this matter will ultimately return to the Supreme Court, as we have said all along that it must. We think that the constitutionality of states’ amendments on marriage will there be upheld.”
The obvious danger of a high court ruling is the justices could make homosexual “marriage” the law of the land the way they did with abortion. The best outcome would be for the court to affirm marriage as one-man-one-woman. The second best would be to rule marriage as a matter for the states.