By: Shoshana Weissmann

IN SUPPORT OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
The majority opinion in Perry v. Brown, heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, makes an extremely compelling argument against the validity of Proposition 8. To clarify, Perry v. Brown has been taken on appeal to the United States Supreme Court and is being heard this week. It is better known as “Hollingsworth v. Perry,” or, “the Prop 8 case.”

The issue in Perry v. Brown is whether Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that it does indeed violate the Equal Protection Clause.

For years, same-sex couples had the opportunity to be legally married in California. Proposition 8, a ballot initiative amending the state constitution, stripped them of the right to marry… in name only. In other words, after Proposition 8 was enacted, same-sex couples could enter into domestic partnerships with all the same rights as opposite-sex married couples, with one difference. They would not be “married.” They would be “domestic partners.”

In accordance with the Equal Protection Clause, a compelling governmental interest must exist when treating similarly situated people dissimilarly. No such reason exists in the case of Proposition 8, especially as the singular effect had by the law is changing the name of the legal union between same-sex couples from “marriage” to “domestic partnership.”

The majority opinion in Perry v. Brown, written by Judge Reinhardt, goes so far as to say Proposition 8 “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’” (Perry v. Brown).

Proposition 8’s singular effect is so trivial in the worst of ways. The court argued the law harms same-sex couples by denying same-sex couples the classification of “marriage,” which “is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults” and holds a large amount of societal significance. (Perry v. Brown).

However, I am not convinced Proposition 8 holds intentional malice against same-sex couples, even if it does harm same sex couples and violate the Equal Protection Clause. Rather, I believe the issue which many fail to see is distinguishing between marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious or personal sense. This is even addressed in the opinion: “A state may enforce and dissolve a couple’s marriage, but it cannot sanctify or bless it. For that, the pair must go next door.” (Perry v. Brown). Some believe gay marriage proponents are arguing that the government should be allowed to force religious institutions to marry gay couples against the will of the religious institution. That is not at all the case. This is especially true in Perry v. Brown, as the only aspect that Proposition 8 changes is what one calls same-sex couples entering into a legal union.

From a purely legal perspective, no compelling governmental interest exists to legitimate calling opposite-sex couples “married,” while calling same-sex couples “domestic partners,” when both types of couples enjoy the same legal rights when entering into both unions. Proposition 8 is a great example of how the law can be trivialized to a ridiculous extent. There is no compelling governmental interest in upholding semantics. For these reasons, I am confident the Supreme Court will uphold the ruling in Perry v. Brown.

To read the argument for traditional marriage, click here.

By: Travis N. Taylor

IN DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
This week, the Supreme Court will hear two cases dealing with the redefinition of marriage.  On Tuesday, the Justices will take on California’s Proposition 8, that state’s ban on same-sex “marriage” (SSM); and on Wednesday, they will review the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Clinton-era law that defines marriage as one man and one woman for the purposes of the Federal government.

Although public opinion, especially in our generation, has shifted in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry (SSM even finds support among 22% of  Republicans and roughly a third of Conservatives), opposition remains.  Defenders of traditional marriage cite biological, social, economic, and religious justification for their opposition to SSM, summarized most succinctly by Ryan T. Anderson at The Heritage Foundation.

Like the vast majority of my generation, I have friends who are gay and lesbian.  I have had two gay roommates, who were far and away the best roommates I’ve ever had.  The most recent of whom is to this day one of my best friends and, despite living half-a-continent apart, we keep in touch on a regular basis.  However, unlike the majority of my generation, I am on the side of traditional marriage.  And my stance on the issue has never hindered, hampered, or destroyed a friendship with any of my gay or lesbian friends.  We have meaningful conversation and debate about my positions and those discussions have only served to strengthen friendships because I’m a good friend and I love my friends for who they are and who they choose to be.

The Debate Rages On
I understand the arguments of those who agree with me: the purpose of marriage is for lifelong love and commitment and the rearing of children; children are more successful when coming from a two-parent home; redefining marriage will demand elementary students discuss questions of sexual behavior long before they are developmentally prepared, and before their parents are ready to broach the subject.  And I agree with them, based on my in-depth study of the Bible, that homosexual behavior is a sin.  What I can’t understand, or support, however, is the messaging (which is weak) or the tactics (which are at times less than loving) of my side of the aisle.

And while I do not accept most positions of those with whom I disagree, I do understand their arguments: Gay people are born that way and can’t help who they love; gay and lesbian couples are equal to heterosexual couples in raising children.  There are even some clergy who argue that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality or that it is simply an Old Testament law, inapplicable to the New Testament Church.  Although the messaging of the Left on this issue has been (and continues to be) impeccable, the tactics of painting dissenters as hateful, bigoted, or un-American is vitriolic – a guise by which to sidestep thoughtful debate – and contrary to the ideals of our great nation.

I support traditional marriage on most of the grounds listed above: Biological, social, and religious.  Despite the liberal monopoly on the academy, biological science has never proven that anyone is born gay.  Social science has shown correlation (but not actual causation) between being raised by homosexual couples and diminished social, economic, and psychological capacity later in life.  And regardless of what agenda-driven clergymen say, homosexual conduct directly conflicts with both the Old and New Testaments.

Constitutionally Speaking
Proponents of redefining marriage cite the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause as justification for their case, a reference which should infuriate racial minorities. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified to protect blacks from prejudices in the law, not to expand the law to accommodate various lifestyles. The likening of SSM to the plight of racial minorities is offensive and unsubstantiated.

I believe, as does Jason Kuznicki at the Cato Institute, that marriage is a state issue under the authority of the Tenth Amendment.  But my policy objection to the redefinition of marriage on a Federal level rests on the First Amendment.  As I opined elsewhere when President Obama was forced into endorsing SSM, the legalization of gay marriage will absolutely violate the First Amendment’s protective barrier of religion from state control.

If gay marriage becomes legal, as it has in nine states and in DC, then one may reasonably expect the government will apply an: “it’s the law so you have to follow it” argument.  Although opponents typically deride such a concern as alarmist, we have already seen this scenario played out under the government’s recent application of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as ObamaCare.

As I wrote previously, ObamaCare,

…contained a provision that requires employers to pay for birth control, including abortifacient drugs (which terminate a pregnancy in its earliest stages).  This provision became law and when Christians, particularly the Catholic Church, raised their objections, the Obama Administration fought back.  Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, one of the nation’s leading pro-choice politicians, issued an order that [without any approval by Congress] required the Church to comply with the law, despite the fact that their deeply held religious beliefs prohibit the use of contraception and certainly condemn abortion.  The Administration argued that “religious beliefs don’t give you a pass to not obey the law.”

It will force pastors, priests, and other clergy to perform marriages for same-sex couples, notwithstanding their religious objections to the practice of homosexuality.  The Obama Administration has already begun its degradation of religious liberties; they will certainly not hesitate to continue.  And that’s the scary part.

Soon, the Catholic Church will be required to provide for (what it views as) the sin of its employees.  With that considered, it doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to see that Baptist pastors would have to officiate the sinful (in their view) marriage of two men or two women.  Already struggling with the stigma of being anti-religion, this extra attack on people of faith could paint Mr. Obama into a corner he can’t get out of.

So, while I at times disagree with the tactics and messaging of those in agreement with me on this issue, I believe they are right on the issue.  For the protection of the family and society, I believe traditional marriage is the right way to go.  For the Constitution and the future of our Republic, the redefinition of marriage is the wrong way to go.  I encourage my Constitutional conservative friends, particularly those of faith, to recognize this and defend traditional marriage with those of us in our generation who are fighting, and will continue to fight, for this noble cause.

To read the argument in support of same-sex marriage, click here.