Last month, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit struck down a voter-approved (by 57 percent) amendment in Virginia that affirms marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
The ruling meant that homosexuals could begin “marrying” in Virginia. But they’ll have to wait. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked such “marriages” while the case is on appeal. From USA Today:
While nearly all federal and state courts have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage since the high court issued two landmark decisions in June 2013, judges have blocked nearly all such marriages while the cases are appealed. The justices had stepped in once before, in Utah, to do just that.
If the court declines to hear the Virginia appeal, the stay would be lifted and couples could begin getting married. Otherwise, those marriages would have to wait until the case is ultimately decided.
“The Supreme Court is making clear, as it already did in the Utah marriage case, that it believes a dignified process is better than disorder,” said Byron Babione, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the Virginia court clerk opposed to same-sex marriage.
It’s odd that, given the essence of the marital union, anybody would imagine two men could be married to each other. It defies not only logic, but common sense. How can a handful of people overrule thousands of years of history, not to mention ignore biology, and announce from on high that marriage no longer consists of a man and a woman?
Procreation is intricately and fundamentally linked to marriage, whether or not children are produced within the marriage. The government’s compelling interest in the institution historically focused on the children’s well-being. The biological bond between the parents and children tends to stabilize the family unit, which is the building block of any decent society. Why would the government encourage or even recognize “same-sex” unions? What state interest would it serve to recognize or encourage two men to call themselves married?
Homosexuals argue that marriage is a civil right, and equal treatment under the law requires that they be allowed to change the meaning of a word to suit their needs. But the so-called right to marry isn’t absolute. There are limits. Siblings can’t marry. An adult can’t marry a minor. Three people can’t enter into a marriage. The law makes distinctions. But these people, excluding the minor, can “love” and live with whomever they want. Not being allowed to marry doesn’t violate any of their rights. What civil right is being infringed? What about the actual civil rights of the religious who oppose such mockery?
I have little hope the issue will be resolved. Perhaps Christians should start calling their God-ordained unions by a different name and allow the word marriage to spiral out into the ether.
Photo credit: Star Parker/Facebook